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

Alexey Melnikov writes:
> Ken Murchison wrote:
> > Proposed text 2:
> >
> > If the address is not encoded to contain a detail sub-part, then the 
> > address fails to match any of the specified keys.
> Either one is fine, I slightly prefer choice 1 (on the other hand 2 is 
> more readable. So I guess I can't really decide in this case :-)).
Either is fine with me as well. 2 slightly better.

Arnt