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 this could help the authors.
Thanks,
Lisa
On May 22, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
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 a Security Consideration. I saw opinions in
favour of "deprecating" the construct, but I am not sure if that's
an opinion for or against the health warning (since the definition
of deprecation is loose here). In any case, even if you count
those as "votes against" , I still see rough consensus.
Lisa
The IESG reviewed <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
crocker-rfc4234bis-00.txt> for publication as Internet Standard
and would like to know if there is consensus to recommend against
the use of LWSP in future specifications, as it has caused
problems recently in DKIM and could cause problems in other places.
Some discussion on this point already:
- http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg46048.html
- http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/
msg00463.html
- http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007295.html
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?
command=view_comment&id=66440 (in this tracker comment, Chris
Newman recommended to remove LWSP, but for backward-compatibility
it's probably better to keep it and recommend against use)
Thanks for your input,
Lisa Dusseault
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf