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

Since I composed this I saw additional opinions - one for doing nothing, and a couple that I interpreted as something stronger than a warning (e.g. "do not use in the future"). I still believe there to be rough consensus for a warning. If anybody can suggest (or repost) very specific text

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

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

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

Charles Lindsey wrote: > we could follow the lead of RFC 2822 and remove the defiition of > LWSP to a separate "obsolete" section, with the provision that > its use MUST be accepted (by existing RFCs, which is at most the > three above), but MUST NOT be generated (by new RFCs). No obs-LWSP, pleas

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

On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:37:54 +0100, Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On May 18, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote: Well do we know exactly how much Babel there is? John Leslie published this list on the IETF reflector: Of which only the following three make normatice use of

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

Tony Finch wrote: > The only one is RFC 4646 in the syntax for the language tag registry. Yes, fixed in the 4646bis-06 draft. Not used in the 4646 registries: Frank

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

On May 18, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote: Well do we know exactly how much Babel there is? John Leslie published this list on the IETF reflector: rfc0733 obs-by rfc0822 rfc0822 defs LWSP-char = SPACE / HTAB obs-by rfc2822 rfc0987 refs rfc0822 rfc1138 refs rfc0822 rfc1148 refs rfc

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

On Fri, 18 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > On Friday, 18 May, 2007 09:00 +0100 Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > NTWSP = [CRLF] 1*WSP ; non-trailing white space > > Sure. Except that much, if not most, of our textual > descriptions of these protocols describes lines, and line-l

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

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Charles Lindsey wrote: > > So has anyone grepped through the the whole RFC databas to identify which > current standards do rely on the definition? And of those that do, how many of > them now contain (possibly not recognised) problems arising from its use? The only one is RFC

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

On Fri, 18 May 2007 00:38:15 +0100, Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be nice if the progression of ABNF to a full standard reduces this Babel. Well do we know exactly how much Babel there is? If we deprecate LWSP for future use, then the remaining problem is the set of existin

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

On Thu, 17 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > After all Thing could case similar problems if > some construction permitted it ... This is not news. There have for a long time been problems with significant trailing space, which is why CRLF 1*WSP CRLF in a header is part of the obs- syntax of 28

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

John C Klensin wrote: > LWSP AtLeastOneRequiredThing CRLF > or > [ LWSP optional-stuff ] CRLF > I don't see either of the latter as problematic. Depends on the protocol. Your constructs match SP CRLF SP CRLF SP AtLeastOneRequiredThing CRLF SP CRLF SP CRLF SP optional-stuff C

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

it could be argued that the best thing to do is to remove ALL of the rules from the ABNF spec, leaving only the language definition and examples. (actually I think I did argue this sometime around 1996, but I'm too lazy to search through old email to find it. I'm actually surprised that a problem

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

On Thu, 17 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > (1) Other specifications that use the term "LWSP" to > refer to something different from what is unambiguously > defined in the ABNF spec. > > [This] group is, IMO, just broken. I agree with your sentiment but sadly there's a lot of

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

--On 17. mai 2007 15:32 -0400 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right. Here, I don't think the definition is wrong, I just think the term being defined is wrong. We proposed a definition for a useful concept. Actually we defined a concept (LWSP) in a way that turned out to be much m

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

On Thu, 17 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > Is this construction dangerous if used in inappropriate > contexts? Sure. Does that justify a warning note to the > unwary? Probably. Is it possible to implement other things and > call them by the same name (i.e., create a non-conforming > impleme

[ietf-dkim] 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: [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] 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

; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: [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 aro

[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] 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

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: 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

[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: > 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 bei

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

On May 14, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: 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

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

I'm inclined to agree that there is a problem, and your proposed solution of keeping LWSP but depreciating it is probably correct. However, I recommended also adding a new, correct definition (for DKIM we used FWS from RFC 2822) and a discussion of the differences. eric ___