Mark Delany wrote:
Why not? What's the rush? DKIM has been alive for at least a year and DK
has been alive for at least two years?
We each only have so many cycles to devote to this document. I
strongly believe the WG don't want to reset the process and are
right to hold that opinion.
Michael Thomas wrote:
if this is the only ABNF goof we'd be doing pretty well.
Yes. And actually I didn't claim that my proposed fix
addresses the problem of the OP. I only don't like lines
containing only trailing white (no visible character), if
their semantics differs from empty lines:
I do not see where making the change in the spec is going to reduce
compatibility.
On the contrary I think that if we don't change the spec to say what we meant
we will see more incompatibility.
The whole point of Proposed vs Draft is to catch this type of thing. We don't
have a standard yet.
At 2:38 PM -0800 3/8/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I do not see where making the change in the spec is going to reduce
compatibility.
On the contrary I think that if we don't change the spec to say what
we meant we will see more incompatibility.
Or we can change the spec to make it
Mark Martinec wrote:
a public key in TXT RR like the following would be alright:
k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqCRLFSPGSIb3DQEBAQUA...
while the one without a SP would not be syntactically correct:
k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqCRLFGSIb3DQEBAQUA...
It seems the requirement to insist on LWSP (e.g. a WSP
At 12:34 PM +0100 3/7/07, Frank Ellermann wrote:
But it also uses the 4234 LWSP in (2.4), sigh. It's IMO a
bit late to address your concern, but maybe Eric could still
do a s/LWSP/[FWS]/g in AUTH48 eliminating LWSP everywhere (?)
Absolutely not. This is a technical change. If we tried that,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
maybe Eric could still do a s/LWSP/[FWS]/g in AUTH48
eliminating LWSP everywhere (?)
Absolutely not. This is a technical change.
It's IMO more in the direction of an erratum. Nobody
could claim with a straight face that they need lines
consisting only of white space for
At 7:09 PM +0100 3/7/07, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
maybe Eric could still do a s/LWSP/[FWS]/g in AUTH48
eliminating LWSP everywhere (?)
Absolutely not. This is a technical change.
It's IMO more in the direction of an erratum. Nobody
could claim with a straight face
maybe Eric could still do a s/LWSP/[FWS]/g in AUTH48
eliminating LWSP everywhere (?)
Absolutely not. This is a technical change.
It's IMO more in the direction of an erratum. Nobody
could claim with a straight face that they need lines
consisting only of white space for their folding
Mark Delany wrote:
Current DKIM deployment is infinitesimal compared to DK, so I find the
already deployed argument bogus in the extreme.
+1, thank you.
Of course I don't want a new IESG review or other delays.
Why not? What's the rush? DKIM has been alive for at least a year and DK
has
10 matches
Mail list logo
