Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Sat, 22 September 2007 21:47 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 1IZCpL-00042B-IQ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:47:51 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IZCpK-00041D-Ji for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:47:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZCpK-0003yj-2Z for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:47:50 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZCp8-00005u-Rk for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:47:45 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IZCoT-00037T-EQ for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:46:57 +0000
Received: from 1cust43.tnt3.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.14.43]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:46:57 +0000
Received: from nobody by 1cust43.tnt3.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:46:57 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:46:39 +0200
Organization: http://purl.net/xyzzy
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <fd42ga$j8o$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <46F545F1.1010806@bbiw.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust43.tnt3.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
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

Dave Crocker wrote:

>> 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.

[...]
> consensus to retain the LWSP construct and consensus to add a 
> warning.  The text that Chris is suggesting seems to accomplish
> this.

The text is fine, and slightly stronger than my proposal in April:
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/24801/match=lwsp>

I'd prefer to put the prose in the security considerations, but
that's only a matter of taste, I don't like long comments in ABNF.

 Frank