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

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

 





Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> 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 you are assuming a more constrained discussion than what I've been seeing on this thread. The thread has discussed everything from removing the rule, to redefining it, to declaring it "deprecated", to adding some commentary text.

It appears you are only talking about the last, although I for one missed that. (For reference, when I said "change the specification" I mean normative change.)

Although I've seen some postings against even having a comment added to the text, my own reading of the postings is that there is a reasonable consensus that it would be ok.

My own view is that comments can be helpful and are, at worst, typically rather benign. Indeed, the IETF approach towards specification writing is rather friendly towards including whatever comments folk feel might be helpful, modulo the obvious danger that too many comments can wind up obscuring a document. (And, no, I do not think that that is a danger here.)

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________

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]