Re: Upcoming new test-suite release

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Julian Mehnle wrote:
> [ "a:<64chars>.bar" / "a:%{macro-that-expands-to-64+chars}.bar" ]
>
> I have thought long about how a PermError (let alone TempError) could
> be justified for those cases, but I couldn't find a reasonable
> rationale, so I took the liberty of narrowing it down to "no-match". 
> Is there any dissent?
> [...]
> What about the attached diff?  It hopefully resolves all open concerns.

No opposition to that patch was raised, so I now committed exactly that,
as r95 of the test suite:

  http://www.openspf.org/source/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests.yml?view=log
  http://www.openspf.org/source/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests.yml?r1=94&r2=95

Can we now make a new test suite release?

> If not, then do we really need an erratum (currently noted as
> <http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata#permerror-invalid-domains>)
> codifying the "no-match" behavior, or can we just drop the draft
> erratum entry?

Any comments on that?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH6ss/wL7PKlBZWjsRAkQqAKCt0wzlX9w9h9h3qVbw7hxLmFejswCg2gns
oGmCozTB7DJTcmQ/jZ90QTo=
=Uprt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----