Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Mon, 14 May 2007 19:10 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 1Hnfw9-0002CL-GX; Mon, 14 May 2007 15:10:25 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hnfw7-00026F-Vg for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 15:10:23 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hnfw7-000263-Kl for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 15:10:23 -0400
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hnfw5-0002i3-9q for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 15:10:23 -0400
Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8387142200; Mon, 14 May 2007 12:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MFDNKQonIiXg; Mon, 14 May 2007 12:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310A9142201; Mon, 14 May 2007 12:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:10:03 -0700
To: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
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

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)

Thanks for your input,
Lisa Dusseault