Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 17 May 2007 15:58 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 1HoiNE-0001R8-J7; Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:40 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HnwdZ-00062l-N3 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:00:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnwdZ-00062c-DH for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:00:21 -0400
Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnwdV-0006rR-Sp for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:00:21 -0400
Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Rkmu3ABD4UuO@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:00:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4648E788.30907@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:49:44 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:36 -0400
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

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> 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)

I think it would be better to keep LWSP and recommending against its 
use. Running grep on various RFCs shows that this production is 
referenced in several RFCs, even in some recent ones.

I don't object to Chris' idea to add FWS to the ABNF document.