Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

On May 16, 2007, at 5:47 PM, John C Klensin wrote: I would have no problems if that note made it clear that use of LWSP in a context in which it could end up on a line by itself (in a context in which "lines" are significant) can be particularly problematic. I see those options as very di

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

--On Wednesday, 16 May, 2007 17:21 -0700 Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In response to off-line comments, > > Although LWSP has been placed within "core rules", LWSP is > _not_ a rule core to the ABNF definition of ABNF. LWSP is > _not_ essential. Deprecating this macro does _not_

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

In response to off-line comments, Although LWSP has been placed within "core rules", LWSP is _not_ a rule core to the ABNF definition of ABNF. LWSP is _not_ essential. Deprecating this macro does _not_ impact the definition of ABNF. This macro can be deprecated to ensure it will not pro

Design of metalanguages (was: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call)

--On Wednesday, 16 May, 2007 13:58 +0100 Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > I'm surprised you say ABNF has become too complex. It's hardly > changed apart from removal of the # rule, and if you took > anything else out it would lead to rather less readable > grammars. Tony, First, my

RFC Editor Contract Concluded

The IAOC announces that an agreement has been concluded between the Internet Society and the University of Southern California for the provision of RFC Editor services for two years beginning January 1, 2007. The Information Sciences Institute at USC has been providing RFC Editor services unde

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

On May 16, 2007, at 5:19 AM, John C Klensin wrote: Doug, John, It seems to me that we have two separate issues here (I'm not even going to go so far as "problems"): (1) Some documents have used the term LWSP in a way that is not strictly conformant with the definition in the ABNF docume

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

On May 15, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: Tony Hansen said: 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

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 correctly have had too many interop problems, so they have replaced it with a simpler rule such as FWS. ___ Ietf mailing list Iet

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

On Wed, 16 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > It seems to me that we have two separate issues here (I'm not > even going to go so far as "problems"): > > (1) Some documents have used the term LWSP in a way that is not > strictly conformant with the definition in the ABNF document. > > (2) From tha

RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Add a warning note Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications 404-847-6397 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:03 PM To: Tony Hansen Cc: Apps Discuss; IETF General Discussion Mailing List; [

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

At 5:35 PM -0700 5/14/07, Lisa Dusseault wrote: 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. A warning would be ver

Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?

Michael, [ stripping out a lot of content to just say what I want to say... ] On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:38:11AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At this point, I think it is inappropriate to continue the Central > ULA discussion on the RIR policy lists. Agreed. > In fact, if any policy were t

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Tony Hansen said: >> 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. > > LWSP has a valid meaning and use, and its

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Lisa Dusseault wrote: The IESG reviewed 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 p

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

--On Tuesday, 15 May, 2007 16:00 -0700 Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>The use under RFC2530 is a bit vague ("with LWSP >>wrapping"); likewise >> under RFC3501 ("otherwise treat SP as being equivalent to >> LWSP"). The use under RFC4646 has caused known problems. >> >>Th

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?

> > The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC. > > The US DoC, through IANA functions, says, e.g., what IP Address blocks > each can allocate. That seems to qualify as 'much say' So it seems that you and Ray are in agreement. All the other details are not terribly relevant