> - 1201/1217 were the same. Arvel volunteered to write a > requirements-like sentence to the effect that human-friendly > syntax is nicer and whenever that sentence is agreed we add > it and CLOSE these
How about this (this doesn't need to be too wordy): "Expectations MUST be presented in the Protocol syntax using as intuitive a descriptor as possible. For example, p=! would be better represented as p=strict." Is this ok? -- Arvel _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
