[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Filter-rules-01 & Issue 192
Now also CC:ing the RADEXT.
Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
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.
Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve) kirjoitti:
[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
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.