I assume you mean it should include a pointer to that SHOULD, not restate it as such?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Barry, Dave, and Alexey,
I don't see a problem, but for context I was really just borrowing from
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.
>
>
RFC 3501, which already states that SHOULD (Section 2.2 if memory
serves). Stating it again won't hurt.
Eliot