Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:50:23 -0400

--On Saturday, 22 September, 2007 09:42 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> The current situation with elevating the ABNF document to full
> Internet Standard is that Lisa has a Discuss hold on it, on
> behalf of an IESG view that a warning note should be attached.
> 
> Acting as an individual contributor, Chris Newman has offered
> the following change to the document, as a possible means of
> resolving things:
> 
> 
>> OLD:
>>         LWSP           =  *(WSP / CRLF WSP)
>>                        ; linear white space (past newline)
>> NEW:
>>         LWSP           =  *(WSP / CRLF WSP)
>>                        ; Use of this linear-white-space rule
>>                        permits ; lines containing only white
>>                        space that are no ; longer legal in
>>                        mail headers and have caused ;
>>                        interoperability problems in other
>>                        contexts. ; Do not use when defining
>>                        mail headers and use ; with caution in
>>                        other contexts.
> 
> 
>...
> The premise is that the discussion on this list, last May, had
> consensus to retain the LWSP construct and consensus to add a
> warning.  The text that Chris is suggesting seems to
> accomplish this.
> 
> In spite of saying "Do not use", the comment is non-normative,
> in formal IETF specification terms.  Yet it does seem to
> adequately describe the problem and the way to deal with it.

Since I'm opposed to "silence equals consent" mechanisms in
general, I feel obligated to post a note about this.

Although other possibilities would do equally well (and I have
mixed feelings about the "syntax versus Security Considerations
versus both" question), this change appears to me to be
consistent with the conclusions reached last spring.  I think it
is more important to accept some reasonable change, such as this
one, get the document published, and move on than to engage in a
further lengthy debate about just which solution would be best
in some abstract sense.

I would _strongly_ suggest one small change, which is that the
word "valid" replace "legal" whenever the latter occurs.   We
don't make laws around here.

    john

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:55:15 +0100

> further lengthy debate about just which solution would be best

+1 strongly.

> don't make laws around here.

+1 weakly.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |