I assume you mean it should include a pointer to that SHOULD, not restate it as such?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Barry, Dave, and Alexey, > > On 1/27/14, 8:59 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> Actually, I think I convinced Barry that it is updating RFC 2683. > > Yes: because the new line-length-limit recommendation is meant to > > apply whether or not condstore or qresync are in play, this "updates" > > remains (it's the others that used to be there that we scrubbed). > > > > I think David's right that some version of what Eliot said: > > > >> there > >> is a requirement for strict syntax parsing. If the client blows it in > >> any way, the server SHOULD return an error with a BAD response. > > ...should be added to the section about the line-length limit. A > > sentence or two should do nicely. > > > > > > I don't see a problem, but for context I was really just borrowing from > RFC 3501, which already states that SHOULD (Section 2.2 if memory > serves). Stating it again won't hurt. > > Eliot >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
