On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:37:54 +0100, Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On May 18, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
Well do we know exactly how much Babel there is?
John Leslie published this list on the IETF reflector:
Of which only the following three make normatice use of LWSP as defined in
RFC2434 or its precursors:
rfc2530 refs rfc2234
The reference is exceedingly vague as to how the LWSP is to be used
rfc3501 refs rfc2234
which just says "don't use LWSP here"
rfc4646 refs rfc2434
which is apparently about to be 'bis'ed.
I think we are agreed that future use of LWSP is, at the very least, to be
deprecated. The above analysis is almost sufficient to go further and
remove it entirely, on the grounds of non-use together with problematic
effects.
Deprecating LWSP would not _remove_ or _redefine_ this macro.
Indeed. However, we could follow the lead of RFC 2822 and remove the
defiition of LWSP to a separate "obsolete" section, with the provision
that its use MUST be accepted (by existing RFCs, which is at most the
three above), but MUST NOT be generated (by new RFCs).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html