RE: Unknown mechanisms

> RFC4408 is fine as it is in a pure sense, but nowhere does it explicitly
> answer the question "What do I do if there's a bogus mechanism in here but
> the record otherwise looks correct?"  It's vaguely in there.  I think it
> should be explicitly in there.
>
> Yes, it's in the ABNF, and the definition of "permerror" basically covers
> it.
>
> Is there harm in explicitly connecting the two?

Is "xyzzy" an unknown mechanism, a bogus mechanism, or just a syntax error?

To answer this question myself: "Terms that do not contain any of "=",
":", or "/" are mechanisms, as defined in Section 5."

Nowhere in section 5 it says that character strings without "=", ":", or
"/" are mechanisms per se, so this sentence should be read similar to:
"when you encounter a string without "=", ":", or "/", it should be a
mechanism which is defined in section 5."

Chances are that it should have been a mechanism, or a modifier, and it
just contains a typo.  Is "xyzzy = blah" intended as mechanism or as
modifier? In any case it is a syntax error, and syntax errors are covered
in the spec, in more than one place, at least in 2.5.7 and 4.6, possibly
more.

Why specifically mention
syntax-errors-which-look-like-mechanisms-but-are-not ?