ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

2007-05-22 16:31:12
Thanks for everybody's input on this. I interpret the discussion as showing consensus for a comment with a warning near the definition of LWSP.

Details: I counted 18 opinions. I couldn't see anybody arguing for "no comment or text whatsoever". I saw arguments against treating this as a Security Consideration. I saw opinions in favour of "deprecating" the construct, but I am not sure if that's an opinion for or against the health warning (since the definition of deprecation is loose here). In any case, even if you count those as "votes against" , I still see rough consensus.

Lisa



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)

Thanks for your input,
Lisa Dusseault


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


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