Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Thanks for everybody's input on this.  I interpret the discussion as  
showing consensus for a comment with a warning near the definition of  
LWSP.

Details:  I counted 18 opinions.  I couldn't see anybody arguing for  
"no comment or text whatsoever".  I saw arguments against treating  
this as a Security Consideration.  I saw opinions in favour of  
"deprecating" the construct, but I am not sure if that's an opinion  
for or against the health warning (since the definition of  
deprecation is loose here).  In any case, even if you count those as  
"votes against" , I still see rough consensus.

Lisa

>
> The IESG reviewed <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- 
> crocker-rfc4234bis-00.txt> for publication as Internet Standard and  
> would like to know if there is consensus to recommend against the  
> use of LWSP in future specifications, as it has caused problems  
> recently in DKIM and could cause problems in other places.
>
> Some discussion on this point already:
>  - http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg46048.html
>  - http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg00463.html
>  - http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007295.html
>  - https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
> command=view_comment&id=66440  (in this tracker comment, Chris  
> Newman recommended to remove LWSP, but for backward-compatibility  
> it's probably better to keep it and recommend against use)
>
> Thanks for your input,
> Lisa Dusseault
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf