On Thu, 17 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > Is this construction dangerous if used in inappropriate > contexts? Sure. Does that justify a warning note to the > unwary? Probably. Is it possible to implement other things and > call them by the same name (i.e., create a non-conforming > implementation)? Of course. Should that invalidate the > definition? Not if we want to have anything left if the > principle were applied broadly.
+1 Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ ROCKALL: SOUTHWEST 6 TO GALE 8, INCREASING SEVERE GALE 9, PERHAPS STORM 10 LATER. VERY ROUGH OR HIGH. SHOWERS. GOOD. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
