Re: [lemonade] Lack of text after resp-text-code

[Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists at gmail.com>]

> Hmmm. I'd say that RFC 3501 was broken, then.

You might say that, but it's come up before.  If it's broken, it's
broken as designed.

> There's no reason to require text, there, after all, and (as far as I can
> tell) all implementations deal with missing text.

There's no reason to require it, but the spec DOES require it.  Unless
we can get consensus to change that in a rev of 3501, we need to be
consistent with it.  We can't assume that all implementations ignore a
requirement of the spec, and, as Dan says, there's at least one that
doesn't.

Barry