I didn't include the last sentence at first, but it looked so ...
naked. On the other hand, it does sort of say "people reading this
spec should actually read it," which is indeed rather silly.
I can go either way on it.
eric
--On March 8, 2007 2:31:41 PM -0500 Scott Kitterman
<ietf-dkim(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thursday 08 March 2007 14:07, Eric Allman wrote:
I'm thinking of the following addition to the p= description in
3.6.1:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: A base64string is permitted to include white
space (LWSP) at arbitrary places; however, any CRLFs must be
followed by at least one WSP character. Implementors and
administrators are cautioned to ensure that selector TXT records
conform to this specification.
eric
To the extent I understand the issue, I think this makes sense, but
I don't see value added in the last sentence since the whole point
of the spec is to be able to conform to it. I'd suggest deleting
the last sentence.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html