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

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.
+1.

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