Re: "Last Call" pending exp= (empty) erratum

Julian Mehnle wrote:

>> Likely there are more plausible examples how <target-name> could
>> end up "empty" or otherwise unusable.
>> [...]
 
> OK, but then it's not our problem how implementations deal with it.  
> Unspecified input -> unspecified output.

Actually the output for an unusable exp= <target-name> IS specified,
implementations are supposed to ignore a bad explanation, and report
FAIL as if there's no exP= at all.

> I vote for option 2.

Fine, then we'll make it so, 2 and 3 are equivalent.  I'll change 
the errata page in the next days, leaving only your solution, maybe
combining the rationale for 2+3 if necessary.  After that I'll set
a timeout for objections, and if nothing happens in a week or so I
move this erratum to resolved.

The 2821bis Last Call just started, that allows us to tackle the
last open issues based on the current draft.  John just looked into
it _again_ wrt "no-dot addresses", I guess we have the final word
about it, therefore we can finish our pending "no-dot" business.

 Frank

-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=6959932&id_secret=69080653-b963e6
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com