On 2/11/09 10:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Or, alternately, perhaps you're suggesting that's not an issue that really
needs to be solved? (That's not sarcastic; I don't have experience yet to
suggest this is a fire that needs to be put out, so I'm genuinely
wondering.)
Murray,
I do not think this problem should be solved by the errata. I do not
see an actual interoperability problem stemming from this issue, beyond
the clarification of i=, and even there I don't actually know of any
implementations that have run into problems (some references to such
would be very nice).
More importantly, I am concerned about the readability of the
specification, when combined with the errata. Dave and his co-authors
may be extremely precise in their language, but there is a lot of it,
and new terms make the reading harder, and make discussion less
intuitive, requiring constant translation. I see harm with that much
text, and for what *concrete *tradeoff? As engineers we must always ask
ourselves that question. Show me actual reported interoperability
problems between implementations beyond i= and I could at least have a
positive value on the other side of the equation.
All the best,
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html