On 2/25/15 7:09 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
On 25 Feb 2015, at 19:53, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/25/15 4:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
(Apologies again for a belated WGLC review. Please feel free to ignore
this if it's become moot.)
I think this is basically done, and I support it's publication. I only
have one comment:
- Table 2, last row:
I did not find a proscription against zero length strings in the text,
other than a comment that applications can set minimum and maximum
sizes. It's quite possible I missed it. Or is this is a property of the
FreeFormClass? (For comparison, I note that the saslprepbis draft
explicitly forbids zero length strings.)
Yes, it would be good to add a rule about that. I find it difficult to
think of an instance where a zero-length string makes sense within
PRECIS, but we don't prohibit them in the framework so we'll need to
do that in each profile. Something for profile authors to pay
attention to (and, unfortunately, forget to address).
I'm neutral as to whether the profile needs to outlaw zero length
strings or leave that to the application. My point wasn't that I think
we need the rule, it was that the table assumes the rule.
True. But I do think that a zero-length nickname makes no sense.
Peter
P.S. I'm sorry that this work has held up draft-ietf-simple-chat for so
long!
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
