Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 11 September 2011 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC4921F84BC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXpabB-T9gTY for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCC321F84BA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p8BAaWDt024972; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1315737404; bh=oWdMkAd7Y9O476Zpdw5hLhnexhKAb4XoHz1g2gJTYBc=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=PwiPlnrMVEJC3N+EqDDDvAhXf6zmuQlPXY4VvUB1/iHrGwpXjS1elJuBRjkYCA+wd QNJ4oXxpRALByknu1bJCG9LgidlkFl4Xa+p6fumtwYrHm7IIzaGqgRsNyU8bUCpZr8 a1jnpahwY/J3yLoKhN4/6TXEoukJW4e9QOoAPMMM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1315737404; bh=oWdMkAd7Y9O476Zpdw5hLhnexhKAb4XoHz1g2gJTYBc=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fxEbytViZKDHl7vQ1El1N64tXpCdLWjFVRDF7gi/YCNO3W+77DalgX0K1Z0OTMnxw pV7hamGg1mqC42aTqOM/hsi59oIhW4oEwCK7OpBzpAd0o0cX2COt6cT8VQTCjoQOGY 10PzV+2eYVg27dr2t8pLh1QML8znqn+TfoFKDlp4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110911023525.087a8210@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:36:02 -0700
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHhFybrW-NKrkWTcihxCUnwcEmq0nUGTaW8NTdWG8F1N6e1+YQ@mail.g mail.com>
References: <20110910083446.7D45098C251@rfc-editor.org> <8FDDE9E59CF60C43C95F3951@PST.JCK.COM> <CAHhFybpw36MXJJaNA+-EZLUmXgWuxd7WRgkWr0F6RbLci+YJOg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110910171642.087ae4b8@resistor.net> <CAHhFybrW-NKrkWTcihxCUnwcEmq0nUGTaW8NTdWG8F1N6e1+YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (2966)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:34:53 -0000

Hi Frank,
At 23:12 10-09-2011, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>If that is unrelated to what you wanted to say I need a new clue;

There was a time when the author's email address 
was published in a RFC.  You could send comments 
to that address.  As an author, it can be tedious 
having the same errors pointed out 
repeatedly.  It is easier for authors if such 
comments are collected and is publicly 
accessible.  And the errata system took a life of its own.

What I wanted to say was read about the initial 
idea, see how it turned out and draw your own conclusion.

>especially, why did you mention Stéphane's RFC 3536 blog entry?

That's a guess about what may have prompted 
Stephane to read the RFC and send in a 
comment.  As a side note, it is an interesting piece of work.

Regards,
-sm