Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Thu, 17 May 2007 21:16 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HonKx-0005sc-8M; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:39 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HomQE-0003fh-RR for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:18:02 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HomQE-0003fT-Hc for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:18:02 -0400
Received: from dhcp-18-188-10-61.dyn.mit.edu ([18.188.10.61] helo=carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HomQD-0006Ma-BP for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:18:02 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id DF394400F; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <4648E8CB.3010502@dcrocker.net> <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org> <4649FA12.30909@alvestrand.no> <4649FB9A.9000107@bbiw.net> <1504A69099CF1B62F66FE576@p3.JCK.COM> <tsllkfnwgfb.fsf@mit.edu> <E09D6916A9D19A52976E4567@p3.JCK.COM> <tsl7ir7utz8.fsf@mit.edu> <CF36D27A6AC084536D6D8F24@[192.168.1.119]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:18:00 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CF36D27A6AC084536D6D8F24@[192.168.1.119]> (Harald Tveit Alvestrand's message of "Thu, 17 May 2007 21:52:45 +0200")
Message-ID: <tsly7jntdaf.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:34 -0400
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Harald, I'm happy to accept your interpretation of the problem.
However it also leads me to the conclusion that documenting possible
reasons not to use ABNF's LWSP concept, or documenting implications of
that rule would be a good idea.  I also believe that documenting
experience with a spec in future versions of that spec as it advances
is reasonable.