Please take note: I have withdrawn this erratum. This is because there would be optional CFWS (rather than required CFWS) between propspecs, which is actually erroneous.
--Peter From: Peter Occil Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 7:54 AM To: Dale R. Worley; RFC Errata System Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435) On further thought, it is indeed incorrect. Therefore, the errata submission is withdrawn. --Peter From: Dale R. Worley Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 10:36 PM To: RFC Errata System Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435) I think that the erratum is, strictly speaking, incorrect. I've not worked through examples in detail, but you can see that each propspec contains exactly one "=" (other than in certain quoted contexts), which makes it unlikely that two successive propspecs could be parsed as a single propspec. If there really is an ambiguity, the way to demonstrate it is to provide an example.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
