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

• From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
• Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:46:57 -0800
• To: W3C Web Security Interest Group <public-web-security@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
• Message-ID: <4B2AD101.6080700@KingsMountain.com>

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".

=JeffH

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