IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> Tue, 15 May 2007 08:11 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 1Hns8T-0005Sq-0X; Tue, 15 May 2007 04:11:57 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hns8S-0005Qw-0v for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 04:11:56 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hns8R-0005Qo-NC for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 04:11:55 -0400
Received: from anchor-internal-1.mail.demon.net ([195.173.56.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hns8P-0007xg-9w for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 04:11:55 -0400
Received: from finch-staff-1.server.demon.net (finch-staff-1.server.demon.net [193.195.224.1]) by anchor-internal-1.mail.demon.net with ESMTP� id l4F8BpfU000135Tue, 15 May 2007 08:11:52 GMT
Received: from clive by finch-staff-1.server.demon.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1Hns7R-0009Iy-00; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:10:53 +0100
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:10:53 +0100
From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Message-ID: <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <464926FC.30109@att.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, 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

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".

What about moving LSWP, and this text, to a separate section of Annex B:
"B.3 Deprecated constructs"?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email