-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Following Stuart's rationale would mean that we also should not throw
a PermError on syntax errors if some mechanism matches before the
faulty syntax is reached -- after all, if we can get a result, any bad
syntax in later parts isn't critical, is it?
No, because you parse the entire record first as instructed.
With Julian's rationale, some implementations would permerror, and
some would ignore exp=.
Any implementation not supporting "exp=" at least to the extent of parsing
it would not be RFC 4408 compliant. Can you name any?
In fact, since implementations are allowed to ignore exp modifier and not
implement it,
Where do you take that from? You may not have to use the authority
explanation, but you still have to parse "exp=" (just like you have to
parse "ip6:" even if you don't support IPv6 connections).
Or is Julian claiming that even implementations that don't support
exp must still throw permerror when the argument is not a domain spec?
Yes. "exp=" is an official part of RFC 4408. At the very least, its
grammar is.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFrB7iwL7PKlBZWjsRAuDlAJ9VKA9uC7wHPA6cN0qUoGFTM7rLsgCg3mt5
aIX+orpHQ+TKijlT8z2yYJY=
=vH0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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/?list_id=735