Nope, you're right, it's a bug in the doc. It'll be fixed in the next version.
This is the right place to report such problems. So, thanks for the report! -MSK On 10/3/12 1:58 PM, "Michael Stevens" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi. > >I'm working on implementing a dmarc record parser from >http://www.dmarc.org/draft-dmarc-base-00-02.txt > >The BNF for dmarc-ainterval looks wrong: > > dmarc-ainterval = %x72.69 *WSP "=" *WSP > >on page 21. > >Presumably this should allow a number after the final *WSP? > >Is this the best place to report problems? > >I'm experimentally allowing \d+ there. > >Michael >_______________________________________________ >dmarc-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > >NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well >terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
