- 1201/1217 were the same. Arvel volunteered to write a
requirements-like sentence to the effect that human-friendly
syntax is nicer and whenever that sentence is agreed we add
it and CLOSE these
How about this (this doesn't need to be too wordy):
"Expectations MUST be presented in the Protocol syntax using as intuitive a
descriptor as possible. For example, p=! would be better represented as
p=strict."
Is this ok?
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html