In <451910D1(_dot_)697D(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
[RFC 3986 bug wrt <uric>]
do people agree that this is really an error in the RFC?
Yes, it's IMO a clear bug in the STD, but the authors refuse to
acknowledge it, I've asked them twice about it on the URI list.
By "the RFC", I meant "RFC4408". As I mention in my post, I consider
the changes with the URIC set to be minor compared with the problem
that it looks like we should never have mentioned "uric" at all.
Is "unreserved" the correct set to use?
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com