Excerpts from internet.ietf-822: 11-Apr-91 Re: text --> IA5 ? Risto
Kankkunen(_at_)cs(_dot_)helsi (2135)
Btw. RFC1049 allows one to leave out the ver-num part, if there are no
resource-refs, but requires it when they are present. Is there a reason
for this?
I think that's just a syntactic oddity. I've seen people use "null",
which is legal, or just leave the version number blank, which is not
really legal since it has to be a local-part, which (by my reading)
requires at least non-whitespace character. I suppose we could consider
changing the definition to allow it to be blank, e.g.
local-part / ""
Is there a strong reason for wanting to make this change?