-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:24:51PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Right. Why should the grammar allow an argument-less and completely
nonsensical "exp=" when it enforces even the correct numerical range
for IP address octets?
Is the BNF more important than the rest of the RFC ? If so, why is
the rest even included ?
Because the ABNF only describes the formal grammar, while the rest
describes the semantics. That doesn't mean that the grammar should
deliberately allow nonsensical constructs such as "ip4:4444.0.0.0" or
an empty "exp=", though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFrPi9wL7PKlBZWjsRAtpVAKDlDwJiYWttm4NoQoYVOC8LLBVUAgCePF9V
2Hy/H/9rs9DC5T/B/5rIo+k=
=rPLK
-----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