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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Dave> Sam,
    >> Ultimately cases like this should be evaluated based on whether
    >> the final result is more clear overall.


    Dave> What about protecting the installed base for the existing
    Dave> spec?

I think that is not a useful criteria when we are talking about an
informative note.  I think that criteria matters somewhat more when we
are talking about depricating a feature but retaining it, although
even then I think the bar would be reasonably low.  The installed base
will continue to work.

I think that criterian is very important if we were talking about
removing a rule.  For that reason I do not favor removing the LWSP
rule.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]