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 >
- 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