I actually believe the last sentence is important. The first sentence is a
warning about a generic construct. The second directs the reader to a
particular context -- which we already know can cause problems -- in which
that construct occurs.
d/
Eric Allman wrote:
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.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html