On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Ken Murchison wrote: > I guess we didn't do a very good job during last call of this doc ;) > I've only stumbled into these issues while implementing it. Maybe (as > Rob suggested offline) that independent interoperable implementations > should be a prereq (or at least strongly recommended) for a last call.
I agree. I was rather surprised to find that BINARY[] is permitted by the syntax; I was sure that I had read (perhaps in an earlier draft) that a non-empty body part specifier was required. We can, however, submit errata to the RFC editor, and get this fixed at the next go-around. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
