Subject: Re: [lemonade] Question 2: how to change the extension framework

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:04:05 -0800

At 10:43 AM +0100 10/18/05, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>  #2 seems better, because it is more clear on the fact that one 
> can't specify both "holdfor" and "holduntil" values in the same 
> MAIL FROM command.

It's pretty easy to do this in ABNF, isn't it?  Perhaps I'm missing 
something, but off the top of my head:

hold		=	hold-for / hold-until
hold-for	=	"hold-for" delta-time
hold-until	=	"hold-until" RFC3339-date-time

Why introduce an extra parameter that serves no purpose ("hold") and 
needs to be followed by the actual differentiator?

So I'd suggest going with #1 ("hold-for" and "hold-until").
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
                Salvador Hardin

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:18:21 -0800

> So I'd suggest going with #1 ("hold-for" and "hold-until").

For what it's worth, I agree with this suggestion.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:19:34 -0800

Sorry about replying to an old thread.  Now that -03 has been 
published and went with the (IMHO) uglier syntax, the ABNF for it 
looks odd:

       Using ABNF [n2], the syntax of this parameter is as follows:

          future-release-interval = future-release-integer

          future-release-date-time = Internet-style-date-time-UTC

          hold-type = "for" / "until"

          hold-info = future-release-interval / future-release-date-time

          hold-param = "HOLD=" (("for;" future-release-interval) /
                                ("until;" future-release-date-time))

       The absence of this parameter on the MAIL command does not imply a
       default value for this parameter.

       NOTE:  The ABNF for hold-param contains expanded alternatives
       because of a deficiency in ABNF;  there is no way to indicate
      described in the text.  If we could, then the resulting ABNF for
       hold-param would be:

       hold-param = "HOLD=" hold-type ";" hold-info

It looks to me like the wording in the NOTE is missing a line.

But how about making the ABNF:

	hold-param	=	"HOLD=" hold-for / hold-until
	hold-for		= 	"for;" future-release-interval
	hold-until		=	"until;" future-release-date-time
	future-release-interval = future-release-integer
	future-release-date-time = Internet-style-date-time-UTC

This would cleanly show that you can use one form or the other.

Although I still think using "HOLD-FOR" and "HOLD-UNTIL" followed 
immediately by the value would be cleaner than using "HOLD" and then 
having an extra hold-type and semicolon before the value.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
                              --C. A. R. Hoare

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:41:52 -0800

Oops, ABNF typo.  Corrected below.

>  	hold-param	=	"HOLD=" hold-for / hold-until

	hold-param	=	"HOLD=" ( hold-for / hold-until )

> immediately by the value would be cleaner than using "HOLD" and 
> then having an extra hold-type and semicolon before the value.

-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness.
                                                         --Beckett