Your initial suspicion was correct: It is a typo.
Impressive how many folks can miss something so simple.
I'll put it in a note to the RFC Editor.
pr
On 10/20/11 5:48 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
Yes, I interpret the same. But having found no motivation for the
reduction of 10 octets, I just wanted to verify that there is no typo
in the figure.
A bit of motivation for the "988" would help too.
/Miguel
On 20/10/2011 14:42, Russ Housley wrote:
Miguel:
I interpret this text to mean that the old limit was 998 octets and
that the new limit is 988 octets.
Russ
On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
Nits/editorial comments:
- Section 3.4 reads:
Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5322] limits lines to 998 characters and
recommends that the lines be restricted to only 78 characters. This
specification changes the former limit to 988 octets.
bbb ^^^
I wonder if there is an error in the third line and the text should
say "... limit to 998 octets" rather than "988". Otherwise, I can't
explain the 988 figure.
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf