Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 15 May 2007 19:03 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 1Ho2Ix-0007sJ-7s; Tue, 15 May 2007 15:03:27 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho2Iv-0007s8-Gg for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 15:03:25 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho2Iv-0007s0-6y for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 15:03:25 -0400
Received: from dsl-66-59-230-40.static.linkline.com ([66.59.230.40] helo=mauve.mrochek.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho2It-0001tc-Tk for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 15:03:25 -0400
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MGM4D89GTC0060HU@mauve.mrochek.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MGL6WMKMPC000053@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01MGM4D77428000053@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 14 May 2007 23:20:28 -0400" <464926FC.30109@att.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <4648E8CB.3010502@dcrocker.net> <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org> <464926FC.30109@att.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
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

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > I share your concerns about removing rules that are already in use --
> > that would generally be a bad thing.  However I'm interested in the
> > consensus around whether a warning or a deprecation statement would be a
> > good thing.

> LWSP has a valid meaning and use, and its being misapplied somewhere
> doesn't make that meaning and usage invalid. I could see a note being
> added. However, anything more than that is totally inappropriate.

Full agreement with Tony here.

				Ned