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

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote: > > "Could cause problems in other places"... The DKIM hiccup was the first > one I'd heard about. > > By contrast, "linear-white-space" was defined in RFC733, in 1977, with > RFC822 retaining that definition. It is defined in those places as > e

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

Lisa Dusseault wrote: 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 o

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

Harald Alvestrand wrote: Removing features that have proved to be a Bad Idea has always been listed as one of the possible changes from Proposed to Draft - Draft to Full happens so rarely that I would be hesitant to claim that there's tradition for such changes there. The question is the "p

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

Lisa Dusseault wrote: > The issue was initially raised by Frank Hi, a short explanation, initially I hoped that 4234 can be promoted to STD "as is". I missed the (now listed) errata in the "pending errata mbox". Some months later 4234bis-00 was posted, and if 4234 can't be promoted as is, then

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

> 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. > LWSP has a valid meaning and use,

[ietf-dkim] Fluffy DKIM questions

As a distraction from the deeply technical stuff, I have some PR / deployment related questions. I'm looking for answers that are suitable for a user intending to deploy, rather than a developer intending to implement. I'm also talking solely about dkim-base, not about any of the bags on the side.

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; i

Re: [ietf-dkim] Fluffy DKIM questions

I can answer some of these, but not all. --On May 15, 2007 12:08:09 PM -0700 Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Does anyone have an overview of the benefits and drawbacks to DK and DKIM in general? I think there's been several short descriptions, although I don't think I've seen

Re: [ietf-dkim] Fluffy DKIM questions

I'll take a shot... Steve Atkins wrote: > As a distraction from the deeply technical stuff, I have > some PR / deployment related questions. I'm looking > for answers that are suitable for a user intending to > deploy, rather than a developer intending to implement. > I'm also talking solely about

Re: [ietf-dkim] Fluffy DKIM questions

Steve, Please take a look at and then re-send your note with the questions that it doesn't answer. At the least, this will give me some input about the faq's utility. d/ Steve Atkins wrote: As a distraction from the deeply technical stuff, I have some PR

Re: [ietf-dkim] Fluffy DKIM questions

On May 15, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: Steve, Please take a look at and then re-send your note with the questions that it doesn't answer. At the least, this will give me some input about the faq's utility. The FAQ is a generally good, brie

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

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote: > > So that is a total of at most 2 documented cases in 10-30 years. > And keep in mind that the issue is not that the rule "does not work" but that > it is very rarely mis-used. Did you miss my post linking to a description of LWSP-related interop problems

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

Tony Finch wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote: So that is a total of at most 2 documented cases in 10-30 years. And keep in mind that the issue is not that the rule "does not work" but that it is very rarely mis-used. Did you miss my post linking to a description of LWSP-related

Re: [ietf-dkim] Fluffy DKIM questions

>3. Is a valid DK signature a valid DKIM signature? >3b. If the general answer to that is "no", are some subsets > of DK signatures also valid DKIM signatures? It's worth clarifying that you can easily create a single key record that is valid both for DK and DKIM, and you can put both DK and D