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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> 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-0001S3-NY; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:40 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho1kY-0003Lq-QD for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:27:54 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho1kY-0003Li-Ga for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:27:54 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho1kX-0006AO-4m for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:27:54 -0400
Received: from [10.2.2.93] (207.47.11.9.static.nextweb.net [207.47.11.9]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4FIRbZc005368 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 May 2007 11:27:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4649FB9A.9000107@bbiw.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:27:38 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <4648E8CB.3010502@dcrocker.net> <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org> <4649FA12.30909@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4649FA12.30909@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:36 -0400
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, 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


Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Removing features that have proved to be a Bad Idea has always been 
> listed as one of the possible changes from Proposed to Draft - Draft to 
> Full happens so rarely that I would be hesitant to claim that there's 
> tradition for such changes there.

The question is the "proved to be" criterion.

The consensus call was triggered by one documented problem in 10 years.  We've 
had a posting claiming one additional problem (although my own recollection of 
that bit of history was the the list construct was the issue, rather than LWSP.)

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.

Were we to deprecate every feature in IETF specifications that get 
mis-implemented a couple of times over 10 years, I suspect much of our 
technology would be deprecated...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net