Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 17 May 2007 21:28 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 1HonW3-0006bN-5w; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:28:07 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HonW1-0006bD-Og for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:28:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HonW1-0006b5-F4 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:28:05 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HonVy-0000v1-TA for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:28:05 -0400
Received: from [10.200.96.163] ([216.168.240.140]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4HLRpCH013775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 May 2007 14:27:52 -0700
Message-ID: <464CC8D3.2000700@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:27:47 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
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> <4649FB9A.9000107@bbiw.net> <1504A69099CF1B62F66FE576@p3.JCK.COM> <tsllkfnwgfb.fsf@mit.edu> <464C8822.7020503@dcrocker.net> <tsl4pmbrw0z.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tsl4pmbrw0z.fsf@mit.edu>
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: dhc2@dcrocker.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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
Sam Hartman wrote: > >> Ultimately cases like this should be evaluated based on whether > >> the final result is more clear overall. > > Dave> What about protecting the installed base for the existing > Dave> spec? > > I think that is not a useful criteria when we are talking about an > informative note. I think that criteria matters somewhat more when we > are talking about depricating a feature but retaining it, although > even then I think the bar would be reasonably low. The installed base > will continue to work. I think you are assuming a more constrained discussion than what I've been seeing on this thread. The thread has discussed everything from removing the rule, to redefining it, to declaring it "deprecated", to adding some commentary text. It appears you are only talking about the last, although I for one missed that. (For reference, when I said "change the specification" I mean normative change.) Although I've seen some postings against even having a comment added to the text, my own reading of the postings is that there is a reasonable consensus that it would be ok. My own view is that comments can be helpful and are, at worst, typically rather benign. Indeed, the IETF approach towards specification writing is rather friendly towards including whatever comments folk feel might be helpful, modulo the obvious danger that too many comments can wind up obscuring a document. (And, no, I do not think that that is a danger here.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Julian Reschke
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Paul Hoffman
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Tony Hansen
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Tony Finch
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Keith Moore
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Ned Freed
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Dave Crocker
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Eric Allman
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Philip Guenther
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Douglas Otis
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Alexey Melnikov
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… todd glassey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Keith Moore
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Tony Finch
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Sam Hartman
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consen… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Dave Crocker
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Keith Moore
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Frank Ellermann
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call John C Klensin
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call Dave Crocker