Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Eric Allman <eric+dkim@sendmail.org> Thu, 17 May 2007 15:58 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 1HoiNE-0001Qs-8P; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:40 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HngVq-00055P-8m for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 15:47:18 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HngVp-00055H-VG for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 15:47:17 -0400
Received: from dsl081-247-036.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.247.36] helo=knecht.neophilic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HngVo-0003Tb-Hp for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 15:47:17 -0400
Received: from [10.210.202.34] (natted.sendmail.com [63.211.143.38]) by knecht.neophilic.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4EJl2Cu007188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 May 2007 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eric+dkim@sendmail.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sendmail.org; s=default; t=1179172024; bh=lex3dV7mkWrzF5nERo4FdZBF47loFs9iP7gu3Qd j3Xs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: X-Mailer:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Disposition:X-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Checker-Version; b=RSU4qv bJgEl2fD3Avt95kHB0NvGQLCCWqubYciH4RU+agOB7ov55Skh7NyvE7ByWQ7TJ11SZp 63w4KLgSSpo1g==
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:46:54 -0700
From: Eric Allman <eric+dkim@sendmail.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Message-ID: <CE7FA2FC2994173B73F358EF@irma.neophilic.com>
In-Reply-To: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org>
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX autolearn=no version=3.1.7
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on knecht.neophilic.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:36 -0400
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 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

I'm inclined to agree that there is a problem, and your proposed 
solution of keeping LWSP but depreciating it is probably correct. 
However, I recommended also adding a new, correct definition (for 
DKIM we used FWS from RFC 2822) and a discussion of the differences.

eric