At Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:16:22 -0400, Sandra Murphy wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Rob Austein <s...@hactrn.net> wrote: > > > > I prefer Richard's option 2 (allow but do not require linebreaks), > > which is what RFC 6490 RP implementations had to support anyway. > > Richard?s option 2 allows insertion of line breaks in a TAL. > > Should we add a ?Relying parties MUST ignore line breaks/whitespace? as well?
Writer being allowed to insert whitespace rather strongly implies that reader must cope with said whitespace, so seem unnecessary, but if saying this explicitly makes people feel better, sure, whatever. > Richard?s message agrees that everyone?s relying party code he?s > looked at does that anyway. Yep. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
