How about
"Implementers should note that the ABNF speficied above is in error and may be
changed in future protocol versions. Implementations should accept key records
compliant with the following syntax:"
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:08 AM
To: Eric Allman
Cc: ietf-dkim; Paul Hoffman
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR
Eric Allman wrote:
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.
That's what I thought might be useful enough to try.
Wanna try draft a paragraph? Maybe it'll start with something like:
"Deployment experience since this specification was agreed
has shown that..."
If we have such a paragraph agreed then we can think about
whether to include it or not. If not, then at least its on
the list and we can add it to the errata page for the RFC.
S.
_______________________________________________
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