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.
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf