[ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR

[Eric Allman]

Paul, I'm not clear what you are suggesting.  Is this some sort of 
addendum to the spec that says "the ABNF says X, but we really 
intended Y, so consider it to be that way"?  If we do that it seems 
like we have really changed the spec.

Or are we saying "the ABNF says X, but we really intended Y, but it's 
too late to fix this and you should make a note of it"?  Essentially, 
this would be a warning guide to people creating selectors.  That 
does not change the spec, and could be done with an informative note.

eric



--On March 7, 2007 5:53:41 PM -0800 Paul Hoffman 
<paul.hoffman at domain-assurance.org> wrote:

> At 1:10 AM +0000 3/8/07, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Say if you had to write an erratum explaining this, rather than
>> fixing it...what'd you say?
>
> An erratum sounds like a fix. Instead, I hope you mean "an
> explanation of what is in the spec, even if it wasn't what we
> wanted".
>
>> And (assuming such a note is useful) would it make sense to
>> add that to the RFC?
>
> That can be added to the RFC, if done carefully. It would be even
> better if it was done and agreed to on the WG mailing list, so that
> the responsible AD can tell the RFC Editor "this has already been
> agreed to by the WG" and let the RFC Editor decide whether or not
> it is editorial or a technical change.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Domain Assurance Council
>