Re: signatures vs sf-date

> On 24 Jan 2023, at 3:09 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> What about a dictionary, where you're only looking for "x" (expected to
> be an integer), but the sender adds an extension parameter "y" as sf-date?
> 
> A conforming parser (of the current spec) will reject the whole field
> value, and the recipient will not be able to see the value for "x".

If you are parsing a field that uses Date, its specification will refer to sf-bis, not RFC8941. Therefore, you will need to use an implementation that claims conformance to sf-bis. What's the problem?


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2023 00:01:42 UTC