Two comment families asserted RFC requirements the drafts do not make.

The 65535-byte line bound is ours, not the protocol's. §5.2 L962 says "This protocol imposes no separate maximum line length" and §11.3 L2199 repeats it, yet four tests named it an RFC bound and max_line_len's doc cited §5.2 as its source. The constant stays -- a finite receive window is a resource limit, and §11.3 L2200-2201 leaves payload limits to "declared counts and storage policy" -- but it is now documented as local policy, including that a conforming peer may legally send a longer line and we refuse it. Issue #32 justified this constant as a principled tripwire on the strength of that citation; the doc now records that the justification was void.

The §3.10 comments reasoned about a section that no longer exists -- "§3.10 restates §3.2 and defers to it, so introduces no new order rule". The argument had no subject. Each test asserts real behaviour and is kept; the citations now name the section that actually governs it, and r1 points at §3.2 L376-377, the rule the deleted section deferred TO.

not-a-section 6 to 1. Baseline 106 to 101. test 3495 (1 environmental e2e skip, no failures), fmt. Issue #18. check-in: 8aa2cf2c35 user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest