[inopinatus]

That was already motivated by Postel's Law. It's a step beyond to change what the strict form is; relying on the same to justify unilaterally transposing the form is asking too much of middlebox implementations of just about any line-oriented protocol, and possible violates Postel's Law itself by asserting the inverse.

[tptacek]

I don't believe in Postel's Law, but I also don't believe in reverential adherence to standards documents. Make good engineering decisions on their own merits. This article is right: CRLF is dumb. You know who agrees with me about that? The IETF, in their (very old) informational RFC about the origins of CRLF in their protocols.

[inopinatus]

Yes, CRLF is dumb. Trying to justify the problem seems unnecessary, it's widely acknowledged. A productive inquiry looks at why fixing it didn't happen yet. Don't confuse that line of thought for calling for more failure.

This is unrealistic, though:

> I don't believe in Postel's Law

All the systems around us that work properly do believe in it, and they will continue to do so. No-one who writes MTAs or reverse proxies &c is gonna listen to the wolves howling at the moon for change when there's no better plan that "ram it through unilaterally". Irrespective of what any individual may believe, Postel's Law remains axiomatic in protocol design & implementation.

More constructively, it may be that line-oriented protocols will only move towards change when they can explicitly negotiate line termination preferences during the opening handshake/banner/key exchange etc, which inevitably means a protocol revision in every case and very careful consideration of when CRLF is passed through anyway (e.g. email body).

[tptacek]

Hold on: if you do believe in Postel's Law, you agree with me: just send newlines.