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

[Dave Crocker]

I actually believe the last sentence is important.  The first sentence is a 
warning about a generic construct.  The second directs the reader to a 
particular context -- which we already know can cause problems -- in which 
that construct occurs.

d/

Eric Allman wrote:
> I didn't include the last sentence at first, but it looked so ... 
> naked.  On the other hand, it does sort of say "people reading this spec 
> should actually read it," which is indeed rather silly.
> 
> I can go either way on it.
> 
> eric
> 
> 
> 
> --On March 8, 2007 2:31:41 PM -0500 Scott Kitterman 
> <ietf-dkim at kitterman.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday 08 March 2007 14:07, Eric Allman wrote:
>>> I'm thinking of the following addition to the p= description in
>>> 3.6.1:
>>>
>>> INFORMATIVE NOTE: A base64string is permitted to include white
>>> space (LWSP) at arbitrary places; however, any CRLFs must be
>>> followed by at least one WSP character.  Implementors and
>>> administrators are cautioned to ensure that selector TXT records
>>> conform to this specification.
>>>
>>> eric
>> To the extent I understand the issue, I think this makes sense, but
>> I don't  see value added in the last sentence since the whole point
>> of the spec is to  be able to conform to it.  I'd suggest deleting
>> the last sentence.


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net