Eric Allman wrote:
Or are we saying "the ABNF says X, but we really intended Y, but it's
too late to fix this and you should make a note of it"? Essentially,
this would be a warning guide to people creating selectors. That does
not change the spec, and could be done with an informative note.
That's what I thought might be useful enough to try.
Wanna try draft a paragraph? Maybe it'll start with something like:
"Deployment experience since this specification was agreed has
shown that..."
If we have such a paragraph agreed then we can think about whether
to include it or not. If not, then at least its on the list and we
can add it to the errata page for the RFC.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
