W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-security@w3.org > December 2009

Re: more flexible ABNF for STS? (=JeffH)

From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:46:57 -0800
Message-ID: <4B2AD101.6080700@KingsMountain.com>
To: W3C Web Security Interest Group <public-web-security@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Julian said back on Tue, 17 Nov 2009:
 > Isn't that simply the standard approach used in many IETF specs with
 > respect to defining an extensibility point (except it's usually prefixed
 > "ext", not "invalid")?

Ah, thanks for the hint. I did some grepping for "ext" and did find a handful 
of RFCs that use the extension technique in their ABNF.

It seems to me that "ext" or "extension" does have different more palatable 
connotations than "invalid".

Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 00:48:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:17 UTC