Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 23 September 2007 00:50 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 1IZFgR-0001Oy-7X; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:50:51 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IZFgP-0001Oc-Sx for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:50:49 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZFgP-0001OR-J2 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:50:49 -0400
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZFgI-0004Bi-AM for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:50:49 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IZFg0-0002Y9-32; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:50:24 -0400
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:50:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Message-ID: <9BF7C36E0E2900AA9252E3A5@p3.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Cc: Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>
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


--On Saturday, 22 September, 2007 09:42 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> The current situation with elevating the ABNF document to full
> Internet Standard is that Lisa has a Discuss hold on it, on
> behalf of an IESG view that a warning note should be attached.
> 
> Acting as an individual contributor, Chris Newman has offered
> the following change to the document, as a possible means of
> resolving things:
> 
> 
>> OLD:
>>         LWSP           =  *(WSP / CRLF WSP)
>>                        ; linear white space (past newline)
>> NEW:
>>         LWSP           =  *(WSP / CRLF WSP)
>>                        ; Use of this linear-white-space rule
>>                        permits ; lines containing only white
>>                        space that are no ; longer legal in
>>                        mail headers and have caused ;
>>                        interoperability problems in other
>>                        contexts. ; Do not use when defining
>>                        mail headers and use ; with caution in
>>                        other contexts.
> 
> 
>...
> The premise is that the discussion on this list, last May, had
> consensus to retain the LWSP construct and consensus to add a
> warning.  The text that Chris is suggesting seems to
> accomplish this.
> 
> In spite of saying "Do not use", the comment is non-normative,
> in formal IETF specification terms.  Yet it does seem to
> adequately describe the problem and the way to deal with it.

Since I'm opposed to "silence equals consent" mechanisms in
general, I feel obligated to post a note about this.

Although other possibilities would do equally well (and I have
mixed feelings about the "syntax versus Security Considerations
versus both" question), this change appears to me to be
consistent with the conclusions reached last spring.  I think it
is more important to accept some reasonable change, such as this
one, get the document published, and move on than to engage in a
further lengthy debate about just which solution would be best
in some abstract sense.

I would _strongly_ suggest one small change, which is that the
word "valid" replace "legal" whenever the latter occurs.   We
don't make laws around here.

    john