But even if it is a typo, the text makes no sense. It says:
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.
So, if the limit is still 998, then there is no change with respect the
former limit.
/Miguel
On 20/10/2011 15:19, Pete Resnick wrote:
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.
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf