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

"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> Wed, 23 May 2007 08:25 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 1HqmAK-0006XW-3W; Wed, 23 May 2007 04:25:52 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HqmAI-0006XM-BM for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 May 2007 04:25:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqmAH-0006XE-UL for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 23 May 2007 04:25:49 -0400
Received: from anchor-internal-1.mail.demon.net ([195.173.56.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqmAG-0001Vc-I3 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 23 May 2007 04:25:49 -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 l4N8PinB013542Wed, 23 May 2007 08:25:46 GMT
Received: from clive by finch-staff-1.server.demon.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1Hqm8w-000FUy-00; Wed, 23 May 2007 09:24:26 +0100
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:24:26 +0100
From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Message-ID: <20070523082426.GA57435@finch-staff-1.thus.net>
References: <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org> <4649FA12.30909@alvestrand.no> <4649FB9A.9000107@bbiw.net> <1504A69099CF1B62F66FE576@p3.JCK.COM> <tsllkfnwgfb.fsf@mit.edu> <464C8822.7020503@dcrocker.net> <tsl4pmbrw0z.fsf@mit.edu> <464CC8D3.2000700@dcrocker.net> <tslejlfnnef.fsf@mit.edu> <464D02EF.6070607@cs.utk.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <464D02EF.6070607@cs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, 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

Keith Moore said:
> it could be argued that the best thing to do is to remove ALL of the
> rules from the ABNF spec, leaving only the language definition and
> examples.

While I don't support this, it does remind me of a problem. I've had
various people tell me in the past that "ABNF" includes Appendix B and,
therefore, it is neither necessary to cite the appendix or to define basic
concepts yourself.

I know that section 1 says that appendix B is "separate from its formal
status", but I suggest that the introduction to the appendix should make it
clear that citing ABNF does *not* include these rules by reference; such
inclusion by reference needs to be explicit.

-- 
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            |                            |