Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Thu, 17 May 2007 21:16 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 1HonKv-0005iZ-HR; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:37 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Holhu-0002q2-Ha for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 15:32:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Holhu-0002pq-7g for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 15:32:14 -0400
Received: from dhcp-18-188-10-61.dyn.mit.edu ([18.188.10.61] helo=carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Holhr-00088m-V5 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 15:32:14 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 8CF14400F; Thu, 17 May 2007 15:32:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
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> <E09D6916A9D19A52976E4567@p3.JCK.COM>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:32:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: <E09D6916A9D19A52976E4567@p3.JCK.COM> (John C. Klensin's message of "Thu, 17 May 2007 13:35:31 -0400")
Message-ID: <tsl7ir7utz8.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:34 -0400
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.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
>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> writes: John> If we are going to standardize a definitional requirement or John> method -- whether it is ABNF or IPR boilerplate or something John> -- we need to get it right as a self-contained definition John> and then live with it. We should certainly revise and John> replace it if it turns out to be unworkable (as has happened John> with IPR work) or if the definition turns out to be John> inadequate to permit an unambiguous interpretation (that John> issue spills over into my second observation, below). But, John> once other specifications start to depend on the definitions John> that are there, and show those definitions to be adequate, John> we should not be talking about deprecating definitions John> unless we are prepared to "that was wrong, we need to start John> over (even though some of the older material may still be John> useful)". Again, please note the similarity to the IPR John> work. Right. Here, I don't think the definition is wrong, I just think the term being defined is wrong. We proposed a definition for a useful concept. The word we chose (LWSP) stuck in some places but not in others. IN fact other people used the same word for a different although related concept. sufficiently so that the definition we proposed in ABNF is not the most common definition in our standards. Clearly we should not invalidate existing uses of that term. Clearly we do need a definition for the term: it is being used usefully. I think that in this instance, the value of future clarity justifies coming up with a new term that will unambiguously mean what LWSP means in ABNF today. That term will have to start at proposed standard. LWSP will need to continue in ABNF. I see a desire to document our operational experience with the word: many people took this word and used it to mean something else. Perhaps to avoid confusion you should consider whether your use of the word is a good idea. I think there is significant harm in choosing not to document this operational experience when advancing standards. After all, we both agree that it is this experience with running code that gives the IETF value.
- 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