IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 18 September 2017 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A971133245 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJx0bXWh6f38 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A19C51329F9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id i50so2049493qtf.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=KZ+94x8nhJqFcV73/9RW2rU4ccxELSoXYPyPoHgYiXI=; b=csF1mv6CWjVSfTrIlsXBsOVnN1Nfq9Kw1+gEQFdNGl+RYzjE22arIlDGg4ZOqn5yjT nG9bdF1zE43Y0vnaKIT4b7/7aBgXE9fpGg97Q/aZUV4qb89U6ISbNMFFVrmbGONrjCnB QRh/vU3EoxHcGKH3a776m1ZGkg3a8LfhgfC/bOBsXZiuUDuNRBjHlTOksKVV4oKAPAOn QV1KvkX8fHl2IATxfwiahnydsG9JD6QVxZzKU2h2M62YpsRQ5O0eJirGwFI3xSreQn3V Q0Yg3pcU3b2OwPvrWNUXHM0mxGB4j1qUMVcdzpVj2jjKJ/qKyezMhMVcncHtGm30leBn evCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=KZ+94x8nhJqFcV73/9RW2rU4ccxELSoXYPyPoHgYiXI=; b=lqMIM2hwh7xdDTYTYoa1IkLILQp3i/nukXkwyufU1Y/KYG5FOCZ96cqG+zjZ5Su0sF mU0+ARHxqMVsFN271eaQKYAG0cegcvP+Z5lKBRPavhG44CV3FEXXab0Z+CRFU4I5rDJR aaXU76N38khcXGigoj0Pw75/YhJgtVhQ2gqzDn95f1YAItF/Nvv0REU0M04w+WWeY4ha 8Zj+MlJF/35ydhwi4d5tK4ok2VFcbrCkSn+wLafFCXVoO3DOr5qE2Uq7waLmRHkKfqwh jemrfqouEhabxkoiBQg0WXgtBwZCZVdFFlsf/3qEWiiaUId2PjMOIBF724FxdYMKq040 3hrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjBDBj2Y/td235Y1Z7UYsppecdewM5+4SLSGYmZIUVlshXqpMq0 NGLY+RgcHe8KY2+W+qg7SQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCADfym8GUC+zWPCUG2PkwEmPHa18LASDLQC5GXqpRW8y0vZ9sTHMMtMKji0jav5mxIak/vow==
X-Received: by 10.200.12.69 with SMTP id l5mr12118124qti.268.1505771961818; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cavall.ether.lede.home (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s19sm5872038qki.2.2017.09.18.14.59.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <210B4AC2-2E9E-436F-94DE-9292EDE40929@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_01A75A69-2A55-43AD-9E50-0003537CEC9C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:59:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <c76510f0-bf03-1393-9b35-082439cf466b@nostrum.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, ietf@ietf.org
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
References: <09b0ed8b-c47a-83c3-9174-cce990bdb145@rfc-editor.org> <00c301d32e41$e948f160$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <15e8698a857.c32afce7287357.8469431812243660972@ovsienko.info> <55215BEF-7520-4425-98F6-6BE1678F2C57@tzi.org> <15e874e49f1.c1362fb757242.2533006499702663721@ovsienko.info> <20170916153239.thscwu7ljiz37xcn@sources.org> <4815e600-7ec2-86a5-85ac-7ac508185881@gmx.de> <C1FD5021-9193-40FF-846D-B948407A6E41@tzi.org> <1d4033e5-48d2-b62c-d0a2-476ba7541034@nostrum.com> <c53bcaeb-f660-538e-f1f9-3aa213a77c3c@gmx.de> <68C17F98-15AB-4AA5-BB4B-B46D53C51585@fugue.com> <83c37ab2-51f7-9a94-2b86-2b4fbe1cd1d6@nostrum.com> <39EBEA6F-69B7-4B9A-9A72-761766628E1D@fugue.com> <019e429c-5332-b0c7-b895-08e64bae17cd@gmx.de> <A5DCDBE7-ED9B-4393-BAB2-F139C4139AA7@fugue.com> <8ccf8c64-a77a-3213-27ed-96691e77f827@gmx.de> <63813DDD-E2F2-43A6-A22C-CE55E6B9ED70@fugue.com> <689ea779-5a1a-e1b6-c7b1-307b5b3a0c52@gmx.de> <1682DE05-95A2-488F-9875-8EE5FB8C9943@fugue.com> <c76510f0-bf03-1393-9b35-082439cf466b@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TbZyD4YVHlx5mModknGoZx4CP_c>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:59:24 -0000

On Sep 18, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> I don't want to get in a protracted argument either, but I find your assertion that "it does cause problems" to be lacking concrete examples. Can you provide an existence proof of one such example? If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard.

I'm taking Carsten at his word: he described some significant problems.

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status