Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org> Tue, 15 May 2007 02:21 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 1HnmfG-0004ov-FZ; Mon, 14 May 2007 22:21:26 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HnmfF-0004op-IR for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 22:21:25 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnmfF-0004oh-8U for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 22:21:25 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnmfD-0006VN-SQ for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 22:21:25 -0400
Received: from [10.20.30.108] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4F2LLRN031439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 May 2007 19:21:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240831c26ec8c3d9f1@[10.20.30.108]>
In-Reply-To: <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org>
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <4648E8CB.3010502@dcrocker.net> <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:21:17 -0700
To: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014
Cc:
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

At 5:35 PM -0700 5/14/07, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>I share your concerns about removing rules that are already in use 
>-- that would generally be a bad thing.  However I'm interested in 
>the consensus around whether a warning or a deprecation statement 
>would be a good thing.

A warning would be very useful, and a deprecation or removal would be 
very bad because either would cause people to go to the earlier 
documents to see what LWSP meant earlier.