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