Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.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 1HoiNF-0001Sv-8n; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:41 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HoMKH-0004Xg-1V for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 12:26:09 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HoMKG-0004XQ-Nq for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 12:26:08 -0400
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org ([168.61.5.27]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HoMKF-0000Fx-DI for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 12:26:08 -0400
Received: from [168.61.10.150] (SJC-Office-DHCP-150.Mail-Abuse.ORG [168.61.10.150]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6EC4142D; Wed, 16 May 2007 09:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20070515081053.GG33188@finch-staff-1.thus.net>
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <4648E8CB.3010502@dcrocker.net> <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org> <464926FC.30109@att.com> <20070515081053.GG33188@finch-staff-1.thus.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <27CD7D06-BEC7-4442-838C-76E4612C7E8B@mail-abuse.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:25:56 -0700
To: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:36 -0400
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, 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 May 15, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: > Tony Hansen said: >>> I share your concerns about removing rules that are already in >>> use -- >>> that would generally be a bad thing. However I'm interested in the >>> consensus around whether a warning or a deprecation statement >>> would be a >>> good thing. >> >> LWSP has a valid meaning and use, and its being misapplied somewhere >> doesn't make that meaning and usage invalid. I could see a note being >> added. However, anything more than that is totally inappropriate. > > +1 > > Frank's text in > <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg46048.html> > would be fine: > > Authors intending to use the LWSP (linear white space) construct > should note that it allows apparently empty lines consisting only > of trailing white space, semantically different from really empty > lines. Some text editors and other tools are known to remove any > trailing white space silently, and therefore the use of LWSP in > syntax is not recommended. > > However, it doesn't belong in "security considerations". Discarding of lines is likely in response to some type of exploit. The consideration for not using LWSP would be in regard with how security requirements may create incompatibilities. This is the correct section. > What about moving LSWP, and this text, to a separate section of > Annex B: > "B.3 Deprecated constructs"? Agreed. That would also be appropriate. Another problem regarding LWSP is in regard to _many_ differing definitions. A profusion of differing definitions alone becomes a valid reason to deprecate the mnemonic. This definition represents a poor practice as related to security which should not be facilitated through standardization. By removing this problematic construct, better solutions are more likely to be found. At least (ab)use of the mnemonic will have been discouraged. Any continued use of this mnemonic should be discouraged and the note added should clarify one of the reasons for this mnemonic being deprecated is specifically due to its varied and checkered meanings in other drafts. -Doug
- Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Julian Reschke
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Paul Hoffman
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Tony Hansen
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Tony Finch
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Keith Moore
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Ned Freed
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Dave Crocker
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Eric Allman
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Philip Guenther
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Douglas Otis
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Alexey Melnikov
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… todd glassey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Keith Moore
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Dave Crocker
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Keith Moore
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call John C Klensin
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Dave Crocker