Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Tue, 22 May 2007 23:30 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 1Hqdnr-0006QY-6l; Tue, 22 May 2007 19:30:07 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hqdno-0006QI-IX for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 19:30:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hqdno-0006QA-1u for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 19:30:04 -0400
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hqdnm-0006Jh-LF for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 19:30:04 -0400
Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A18C142207; Tue, 22 May 2007 16:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ci0AC3Jd5C84; Tue, 22 May 2007 16:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.201] (ip10.commerce.net [157.22.41.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D21142206; Tue, 22 May 2007 16:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org>
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <7AB296E7-177E-4CDC-9347-4946152A3057@osafoundation.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:29:55 -0700
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 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

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