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

[Charles Lindsey]

On Fri, 18 May 2007 00:38:15 +0100, Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at> wrote:

> It would be nice if the progression of ABNF to a full standard reduces
> this Babel.

Well do we know exactly how much Babel there is?

If we deprecate LWSP for future use, then the remaining problem is the set  
of existing standards that rely on it (plus a few that have redefined  
it/whatever, but those are not strictly relying on it).

So has anyone grepped through the the whole RFC databas to identify which  
current standards do rely on the definition? And of those that do, how  
many of them now contain (possibly not recognised) problems arising from  
its use?

The answers to those questions might throw some light on how we should now  
proceed.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5