Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04.txt> (Resource Pub

On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Rob Austein <sra(_at_)hactrn(_dot_)net> wrote:
> I prefer Richard's option 2 (allow but do not require linebreaks),
> which is what RFC 6490 RP implementations had to support anyway.
Richard’s option 2 allows insertion of line breaks in a TAL.

Should we add a “Relying parties MUST ignore line breaks/whitespace” as well?

Richard’s message agrees that everyone’s relying party code he’s looked at does 
that anyway.

—Sandy

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail