On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:40:10PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> > - Fixing the ambiguous behavior in RFC6844 grammar in a way that
> does not change the language (which means the set of strings that
> are valid in grammar) but fixes the ambiguous cases.
> > - Changing the RFC6844 language to make it parse the examples from
> ACME-CAA as the draft intends them to be parsed. Even if this
> grammar would match the examples from the document.
>
> We are interested in the latter. Folks in the room opined that parameters
> are not used much. Are you willing to write such a thing? (No problem,
> if not.)
Maybe copy the grammar from RFC6844bis, fix the whitespace and formatting
issues and remove the dashes in tags?
The result looks something like:
issuevalue = *WSP [domain *WSP] [";" *WSP [parameters *WSP]]
domain = label *("." label)
label = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT))
parameters = (parameter *WSP ";" *WSP parameters) / parameter
parameter = tag *WSP "=" *WSP value
tag = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *(ALPHA / DIGIT)
value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E)
AFAICT, for arbitrary issue directive one can write in this grammar,
there exists an equivalent issue directive that is in the original
RFC6844 language (possibly with different meaning). Also, this grammar
matches the informal description of multi-paramaeter records in
RFC6844.
-Ilari
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
