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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf