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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 17 May 2007 17:48 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 1Hok5I-00081N-7K; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:48:16 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hok5G-00081I-KA for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:48:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hok5G-000815-AK for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:48:14 -0400
Received: from ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.139]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hok5E-000587-15 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:48:14 -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]:42650) by ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Hok59-0001CC-U8 (Exim 4.63) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 17 May 2007 18:48:07 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1Hok59-00017A-9z (Exim 4.54) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 17 May 2007 18:48:07 +0100
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 18:48:07 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
In-Reply-To: <E09D6916A9D19A52976E4567@p3.JCK.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705171847500.26169@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> <1504A69099CF1B62F66FE576@p3.JCK.COM> <tsllkfnwgfb.fsf@mit.edu> <E09D6916A9D19A52976E4567@p3.JCK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.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 Thu, 17 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Is this construction dangerous if used in inappropriate
> contexts?  Sure.  Does that justify a warning note to the
> unwary?  Probably.  Is it possible to implement other things and
> call them by the same name (i.e., create a non-conforming
> implementation)?  Of course.  Should that invalidate the
> definition?  Not if we want to have anything left if the
> principle were applied broadly.

+1

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
ROCKALL: SOUTHWEST 6 TO GALE 8, INCREASING SEVERE GALE 9, PERHAPS STORM 10
LATER. VERY ROUGH OR HIGH. SHOWERS. GOOD.