Hi Barry, Dave, and Alexey, On 1/27/14, 8:59 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Actually, I think I convinced Barry that it is updating RFC 2683. > Yes: because the new line-length-limit recommendation is meant to > apply whether or not condstore or qresync are in play, this "updates" > remains (it's the others that used to be there that we scrubbed). > > I think David's right that some version of what Eliot said: > >> there >> is a requirement for strict syntax parsing. If the client blows it in >> any way, the server SHOULD return an error with a BAD response. > ...should be added to the section about the line-length limit. A > sentence or two should do nicely. > >
I don't see a problem, but for context I was really just borrowing from RFC 3501, which already states that SHOULD (Section 2.2 if memory serves). Stating it again won't hurt. Eliot _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
