Now also CC:ing the RADEXT. Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
Hi,There are of course corner cases where the last rule-delim alone would go into the a new attribute.. then the savings would be more ;-)I'm OK with your earlier ABNF proposal as it now allows multiple rules per attribute. So, consider issue 192 closed from my side.Anyway, in the ABNF you proposed earlier the role of 'rule-delim' is actually something like 'end-of-rule' mark. It would be nice if you could reflect this in the ABNF.Cheers, Jouni Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve) kirjoitti:Jouni recommended...-----Original Message----- From: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com [JiK] Yes. Is there a particular reason to add a trailing rule-delim if there is only a single rule? If not maybe the example below would work: rule-list = rule rule-list =/ rule-list rule-delim rule rule = "v1" " " (flush-rule / permit-all-rule / l2-filter-rule / l2-tunnel-rule / ip-filter-rule / ip-tunnel-rule / http-filter-rule / http-redir-rule)Yes, your syntax saves one whole octet :), but is the complexity merited? Can we just go with my proposal? It would keep the general rule syntax consistent. MS
-- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>