Pete Resnick <resn...@episteme.net> writes:
This seems like a substantive change in the document and while I think it is probably right, I think it is sufficiently covered by the first paragraph of section 7 and I wouldn't want to make this change without WG approval, not in AUTH48. Arnt: Do you really want to hold up the document for this?
FYI I sent mail to the WG list on 2025-01-27, two weeks before AUTH48. That was late, so search for "late" in the subject ;)
I did that because a maintainer had pointed out to me that my pull request for their code might not be compliant, according to his reading of the RFC. I read 6855 and thought he had a point. The existing text is clear enough for all of the IETF regulars, but I can see how someone like he might wonder what the correct behaviour is.
When this happens I'm in a bind. I may not get my code merged with ANY behaviour, because the maintainer won't see ANY behaviour as clearly covered by the RFC.
So by now I lean towards making it abundantly clear. Not just "sufficiently covered", but abundantly. Does this make sense?
Arnt -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
