[Top] [All Lists]

Re: a conflict between 3598(bis) and the base specification

2007-09-26 03:44:14

Ned Freed wrote:

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Ken Murchison writes:
>> True, the test against the Cc field fails, but when given a list of
>> headers/strings, a logical OR is applied, so matching against To is
>> sufficient for the test to succeed.
> Ah, now I see what you're saying. But 3028 consistently talks about
> "address" as a single test with multiple arguments, not as a collection > of single-argument tests, so "the test evaluates to false" is less than
> ideal phrasing.
> 3598bis is in the RFC-Editor's queue, isn't it? Too late to change
> anything substantive. I suppose a minor rephrasing could be done during > auth48. Perhaps ", then the :detail doesn't match anything" or something
> like that. Not terribly important. Change it if you think that's both
> appropriate and permissible.

Anyone want to second this suggestion?

Changing it to say "fails to match" or something similar seems fine to me.


I don't think this change is very controversial, so it can be done in AUTH48.