Message-Id: <199806102100.RAA07050@spot.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status 
In-reply-to: Your message of "03 Jun 1998 10:25:00 +0200."
             <6vBarrmHw-B@khms.westfalen.de> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:00:41 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> What are the chances to declaring ABNF to be an exception to the rules,  
> insofar as it, in and of itself, doesn't represent any on-the-wire  
> protocol, so there won't be implementations in the usual sense anyway?

If people are really worried about such things, we can do a variance
procedure.

Otherwise, I'd just as soon move ABNF forward with no major changes.
I don't want to have multiple versions of ABNF, and I don't think we
should stand on our heads too much to try to make the "multiple
implementations" case fit.

It would probably be easier to get two people to implement ABNF
parser-generators, than it would to deal with all of the process
mess that people seem eager to create.

Keith