Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Mon, 04 June 2007 22:17 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 1HvKrO-0001tg-LN; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:17:10 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HvKrM-0001tT-Sm for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:17:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvKrM-0001tH-JA for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:17:08 -0400
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvKrJ-0004wg-Bj for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:17:07 -0400
Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0584142202; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:17:04 -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 bm2jI68DNNiQ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212B91421FB; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7AB296E7-177E-4CDC-9347-4946152A3057@osafoundation.org>
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <7AB296E7-177E-4CDC-9347-4946152A3057@osafoundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <C660930C-ECB4-46FF-A92A-980217EB02EF@osafoundation.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:16:58 -0700
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
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

Since I composed this I saw additional opinions - one for doing  
nothing, and a couple that I interpreted as something stronger than a  
warning (e.g. "do not use in the future").  I still believe there to  
be rough consensus for a warning.  If anybody can suggest (or repost)  
very specific text this could help the authors.

Thanks,
Lisa


On May 22, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> 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
>