On May 14, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
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,
1 This issue was initially raised in the IESG by Chris Newman,
who changed
his Discuss, with a statement that he recommended inserting a
comment, along
the lines that others are also recommending. Unless I've misread
the record,
all other votes on advancing ABNF from Draft to Full are positive
or neutral,.
except for your own Discuss. Is this correct?
The issue was initially raised by Frank Ellerman or by various in the
DKIM WG depending on how you look at it -- Frank explicitly suggested
possible changes to the draft, in his posting to the IETF list.
You're right about the voting situation but here's the background: I
took on the DISCUSS myself as a placeholder for an issue that the
IESG had consensus to investigate further (consensus to investigate
what the consensus is). I could have asked somebody else to hold
the DISCUSS but this seemed most convenient as long as the rest of
the IESG trusted me to investigate.
2. The ABNF is a candidate for moving from Draft to Full. Will
removing a
rule (that is already in use?) or otherwise changing the semantics
of the
specification, at this point, still permit the document to
advance? I had the
impression that moving to Full was based on some serious beliefs
about a
specification's being quite stable. Making this kind of change,
this late in
the game, would seem to run counter to that.
Moving to Internet Standard is indeed something we do carefully, and
of course that means investigating proposed changes to make sure
they're appropriate, and setting a high bar for accepting them. I
believe that's what we're doing here, investigating carefully.
I share your concerns about removing rules that are already in use --
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 good thing.
Thanks,
Lisa
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf