Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Sun, 23 September 2007 14:09 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 1IZS9X-0002vY-K0; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:09:43 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IZS9W-0002vP-CP for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:09:42 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZS9W-0002vH-0K for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:09:42 -0400
Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZS9U-00084j-Ku for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:09:41 -0400
Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <RvZzoQA3sKEG@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:09:39 +0100
Message-ID: <46F673C5.9070106@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:10:13 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <46F545F1.1010806@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <46F545F1.1010806@bbiw.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, 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

Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 5/14/2007 Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>> The IESG reviewed 
>> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-rfc4234bis-00.txt> 
>> for publication as Internet Standard and would like to know if there 
>> is consensus to recommend against the use of LWSP in future 
>> specifications, as it has caused problems recently in DKIM and could 
>> cause problems in other places.
>>
>> Some discussion on this point already:
>>  - http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg46048.html
>>  - http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg00463.html
>>  - http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007295.html
>>  - 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=66440  
>> (in this tracker comment, Chris Newman recommended to remove LWSP, 
>> but for backward-compatibility it's probably better to keep it and 
>> recommend against use)
>
> 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.
>
I think this change is good enough, so I support it.