> Alessandro Vesely writes:
> > If the spec is going to be read by ignorants like me, it's better
> > to repeat than to omit.
> -1. It's good that you read the spec, but that's not the primary
> purpose of the spec. It's a bad idea to repeat definitions clearly
> stated in another document (even in informal comments on the formal
> spec) when you refer to the original document; you're just asking for
> new ambiguity.
+1. Repeating stuff like this is in the long term a surefire of silly states,
where one repetition gets updated but not another.
The "running code" that comes to mind is the MIME specification, which
originally had a bunch of repeated and overlapping syntax definitions. In this
case it only took one revision for it to get out of sync and cause confusion.
Ned
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
