Hi Jeff, On Thursday, April 16th, 2026 at 17:55, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: ... > Again, understood. Having not read rfc2622 in a while and how new extensions > are intended to be handled, I couldn't recall what the intended behavior > would be if the responding server is unable to implement the necessary bit of > set math for the client. >
> I think at most this becomes a discussion point for a new operational > considerations section. I also recognize that such sections are likely not > present in other documents covering prior extensions so this would be a bit > of a new burden. (Although, ideally only a paragraph at most.) Thanks for the feedback. I have got some wording in the document already, but I've raised an issue on the github repo to expand on this and make it clearer in the next version. > > Queries like "!v", "!a", "!i", "!gAS", "!6AS", and so on, are all not > > standardised in any official standards documentation form, only in the > > sense of wide spread implementation. > > It is highly likely that a portion of the documentation for a bit of that > remains from my time at Merit working on RADB trying to figure out that same > set of undocumented stuff. :-) If you come across anything in your personal archives let me know :) Cheers, James.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
