Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

I suggest that a version of this sentence goes into 4234bis:

I thought the problem is that protocols that have used LWSP correctlyhave had too many interop problems, so they have replaced it with asimpler rule such as FWS.


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

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, (continued) Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Julian Reschke Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Dave Crocker Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Lisa Dusseault Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Tony Hansen Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Paul Overell Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Spencer Dawkins Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, John Leslie Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Douglas Otis Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, John C Klensin Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Tony Finch Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Arnt Gulbrandsen <= Design of metalanguages (was: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call), John C Klensin Re: Design of metalanguages (was: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call), Tony Finch Re: Design of metalanguages (was: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call), Douglas Otis Re: Design of metalanguages, Frank Ellermann Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Douglas Otis Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Douglas Otis Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, John C Klensin Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Douglas Otis Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Frank Ellermann Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call, Ned Freed