Greg Conner wrote:
(One sort of limiting factor about modifiers is that they are
considered to
be order-independent and the current spec encourages them to be placed
at
the end to make this clear. If I were to propose any modification to
the
current spec, it would be to allow modifiers to be placed inline
allowing
for the possibility that they might apply/associate the terms appearing
after them, if appropriate. This minor change in the spec should not
affect any current parser or published records and would just be a
clarification...)
Michael R. Brumm wrote:
Out of all the SPF spec changes proposed in the name of "extensibility"
in the last couple months, I'd have to say that IMHO, this is probably
the most reasonable. I'd vote for it.
Shevek wrote:
I have always felt that certain modifiers might have 'scope' to all the
mechanisms following them. I agree with this proposal.
If you read the draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00.txt document you'll see
that they have been added. The wording to do so was far from minor,
but this is so that people could implement parsers that don't have to
be recoded when new modifiers are defined. Essentially we had to
define the allowable syntax of different modifier types even though
there are no such modifiers now.
If people need clarification on either what the spec means, how one can
write a parser now that doesn't change when new modifiers are
introduced, or what the rationale behind the choices were, please ask.
I'll be happy to elucidate.
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com