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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 15 May 2007 21:54 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 1Ho4yU-0002iZ-Tg; Tue, 15 May 2007 17:54:30 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho4yT-0002i8-Jd for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 17:54:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho4yT-0002hc-9M for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 17:54:29 -0400
Received: from ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.139]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho4yP-00032d-0D for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 17:54:29 -0400
X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned
X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:42108) by ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Ho4yI-0008B2-Tq (Exim 4.63) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 15 May 2007 22:54:18 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1Ho4yI-0005e7-6q (Exim 4.54) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 15 May 2007 22:54:18 +0100
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:54:18 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
In-Reply-To: <4649FB9A.9000107@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705152252370.12940@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Cc: IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>, 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

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> So that is a total of at most 2 documented cases in 10-30 years.
> And keep in mind that the issue is not that the rule "does not work" but that
> it is very rarely mis-used.

Did you miss my post linking to a description of LWSP-related interop
problems in HTTP? http://www.and.org/texts/server-http#implicit-lws

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
FORTH TYNE DOGGER: WEST 4 OR 5, BECOMING VARIABLE 2, THEN SOUTHERLY 3 OR 4.
SLIGHT OR MODERATE. SHOWERS THEN MAINLY FAIR. GOOD OCCASIONALLY MODERATE AT
FIRST.