Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 18 May 2007 13:47 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 1Hp2nU-0007LW-Ag; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:08 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hp2nS-0007H5-U1 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hp2nS-0007G3-A4 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:06 -0400
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org ([69.25.196.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hp2nQ-00087p-4T for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:05 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id E0307400F; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:16:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <464C8822.7020503@dcrocker.net> (Dave Crocker's message of "Thu, 17 May 2007 09:51:46 -0700")
Message-ID: <tsl4pmbrw0z.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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
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
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

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> writes:

    Dave> Sam,
    >> 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 that criterian is very important if we were talking about
removing a rule.  For that reason I do not favor removing the LWSP
rule.