I had followed up to Tony's note privately with Tony/Lisa/Dave yesterday,
but perhaps I should have posted it here. No time like the present.
I agree that technical changes to a specification as it moves from Draft to
Full does not seem helpful. Although we have darned little experience
actually DOING this, RFC 2026 says
4.1.3 Internet Standard
A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community.
So, it seems to me that the bar for changing technical aspects of the
specification needs to be very high, since this specification has been
significantly implemented and successfully operated for a while now.
Specifically, a deprecation statement would make sense if LWSP is ALWAYS a
bad idea, but we don't seem to be saying that. So I would speak against
deprecating.
I believe that the IETF has a responsibility to implementers. Anytime we
know there is a dragon, we should say "there be dragons".
So I would speak in favor of adding a warning note that clearly points to a
dragon when this specification is used in a new specification.
Thanks,
Spencer
p.s. I have to smile a little that we're talking about ABNF being used in
new protocol specifications after 10-30 years, depending on who is counting.
I wish ALL of our draft standards, and full standards, were as helpful to
the Internet community.
From: "Paul Overell" <paul.overell@xxxxxxxx>
In message <464926FC.30109@xxxxxxx>, Tony Hansen <tony@xxxxxxx> writes
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 being misapplied somewhere
doesn't make that meaning and usage invalid.
Agreed - well put.
I could see a note being
added. However, anything more than that is totally inappropriate.
I would vote against even adding a note. It seems disproportionate to
change a 10 year specification at this late stage on the basis of a single
case of a misapplied, but valid, rule in another specification.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf