Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-02.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 19 May 2013 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 BC4EA21F8A0B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 May 2013 22:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.282, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 2UeAV-ba9Xm9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 May 2013 22:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5458521F89EB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 May 2013 22:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 59722 invoked from network); 19 May 2013 05:21:38 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 19 May 2013 05:21:38 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51986162.xn--yuvv84g.k1305; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=XRdyeOdK0sVkv92V8v9q7BThvK3JM86cY5pUEnuqOc8=; b=AAGnifs3XNpK360CayhGgnlRlzxXo3Vz22aduvArUeZ0t98BT2DB+FsEa0jRqjhIya4HE8VgCs6+yS7vzFQfcIhV/PUIxvwZ4qUALuCwAbjGW01jPZ9oKtLHS2nLmCt0ZRLfdl7QB8+9ELS34uPLv/Hrrq/wcUikhzsTBn5g5V4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51986162.xn--yuvv84g.k1305; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=XRdyeOdK0sVkv92V8v9q7BThvK3JM86cY5pUEnuqOc8=; b=u4JjyGUzGKKqJ2FA81sLTkdC9YjI0V1b4ZUWvPuOirOpvkGHVpPP7oPSZDXkwIvv3kWPw+ESn/3FGgSldBGiNNUgGXm9vkNXhSsfLSLXC3fLwJj1f+4zAki1/h/2NBRl+uCIL+RObmwbl5BrSpeCYkab+HU52EXv7Jp5XcIUpfg=
Date: 19 May 2013 05:21:16 -0000
Message-ID: <20130519052116.75996.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZuMOky2rLBm4UYhgNJmyXaPyO25WhBGrrgK4DUKcAWqg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-02.txt
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, 19 May 2013 05:21:57 -0000

>1) I've yet to see a single implementation that includes a version number
>in its output, though there are some that do look for it.  It seems to me
>it's a safe change to make on that basis.

Mine does, but there probably aren't five people in the world other
than me using it.

>version alone.  Although you're correct that strictly speaking it's
>incompatible, it only affects consumers regarding a currently unused
>protocol feature.

Hmmn.  Let's say I have a mail server farm generating 5451 A-R headers
and the guy down the hall has a filtering/sorting/delivering farm
interpreting them.  Then someone shows up with 5451bis. I am a good
doobie and update my software to comply with 5451bis which, since I am
only using authentication schemes described in 5451, merely involves
adding /1 after the authserv-id.  I hear the sound of screaming from
the other end of the hall as the unexpected slash breaks the
filtering.

Frankly, I'd lose the slash.  Whether or not it was a mistake to leave
it out in the first place, adding it now only creates a gratuitous
incompatibility.