On May 15, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Tony Hansen said:
I share your concerns about removing rules that are already in
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
LWSP has a valid meaning and use, and its being misapplied somewhere
doesn't make that meaning and usage invalid. I could see a note being
added. However, anything more than that is totally inappropriate.
Frank's text in
would be fine:
Authors intending to use the LWSP (linear white space) construct
should note that it allows apparently empty lines consisting only
of trailing white space, semantically different from really empty
lines. Some text editors and other tools are known to remove any
trailing white space silently, and therefore the use of LWSP in
syntax is not recommended.
However, it doesn't belong in "security considerations".
Discarding of lines is likely in response to some type of exploit.
The consideration for not using LWSP would be in regard with how
security requirements may create incompatibilities. This is the
What about moving LSWP, and this text, to a separate section of
"B.3 Deprecated constructs"?
Agreed. That would also be appropriate.
Another problem regarding LWSP is in regard to _many_ differing
definitions. A profusion of differing definitions alone becomes a
valid reason to deprecate the mnemonic. This definition represents a
poor practice as related to security which should not be facilitated
through standardization. By removing this problematic construct,
better solutions are more likely to be found. At least (ab)use of
the mnemonic will have been discouraged. Any continued use of this
mnemonic should be discouraged and the note added should clarify one
of the reasons for this mnemonic being deprecated is specifically due
to its varied and checkered meanings in other drafts.
Ietf mailing list