Paul, I'm not clear what you are suggesting. Is this some sort of
addendum to the spec that says "the ABNF says X, but we really
intended Y, so consider it to be that way"? If we do that it seems
like we have really changed the spec.
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.
eric
--On March 7, 2007 5:53:41 PM -0800 Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)domain-assurance(_dot_)org> wrote:
At 1:10 AM +0000 3/8/07, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Say if you had to write an erratum explaining this, rather than
fixing it...what'd you say?
An erratum sounds like a fix. Instead, I hope you mean "an
explanation of what is in the spec, even if it wasn't what we
wanted".
And (assuming such a note is useful) would it make sense to
add that to the RFC?
That can be added to the RFC, if done carefully. It would be even
better if it was done and agreed to on the WG mailing list, so that
the responsible AD can tell the RFC Editor "this has already been
agreed to by the WG" and let the RFC Editor decide whether or not
it is editorial or a technical change.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html