IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 18 May 2007 13:47 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 1Hp2nU-0007Ma-Gb; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:08 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hp2nS-0007H3-Tf for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hp2nS-0007G0-9l for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:06 -0400
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org ([69.25.196.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hp2nQ-00087o-4N for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:05 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 4CB104011; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:36:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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> <464C8822.7020503@dcrocker.net> <tsl4pmbrw0z.fsf@mit.edu> <464CC8D3.2000700@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:36:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <464CC8D3.2000700@dcrocker.net> (Dave Crocker's message of "Thu, 17 May 2007 14:27:47 -0700")
Message-ID: <tslejlfnnef.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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>, 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

I think redefining the rule would require recycling at proposed.  I
think it would be confusing and harmful to do so.

I think removing the rule would is allowed by the process (and would
require updates in referencing specs as they advance but would not
break anything).  I think doing so would be harmful and is not
supported by consensus.

I do not object to deprecating the rule although I'm not completely
convinced doing so is a great idea.I think it is clearly allowed if
there is consensus.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email