Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id OAA04043; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:24:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:23:54 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id OAA04001; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (munnari.OZ.AU [128.250.1.21]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id OAA03971; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:23:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56)
	id SA06032; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:23:31 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU)
To: iesg@ietf.org, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF to Proposed Standard 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:47:54 -0400."
             <199710091747.NAA18714@ietf.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:23:31 +1000
Message-Id: <29262.876421411@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>

abnf-04 is simply not ready.   I sent my comments to the drums list on
Oct 1 (very early my timeframe, most people would have received the
message on Sept 30).

Drums was, and has been, quite busy, and I wouldn't be surprised if most
people had skipped my message to concentrate on the more inflammatory
other discussions going on.   In any case there was no comment to my
message.   I have just resnt my message to the two ADs, chair, and doc
editor.

Most of the changes I suggest are trivial, and can be easily made, but at
least some are straight out bugs and must be fixed.   I could resend my message
to the list, but I'm sure you can find it in the archives if you look ...
The subject was "abnf-04" and message-id <16364.875635596@munnari.OZ.AU>
(and of course it was from me to the drums list).

Wait for an -05 doc before doing anything with the abnf doc.

kre