IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@dropnumber.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384423A0EB8 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:35:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dWRr0AoDk52T for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3F003A0E87 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.76.59]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus004 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MYe2J-1kqzpb3pqd-00Vh5P; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:35:44 +0100
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:35:44 -0500
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: DISPATCH WG <dispatch@ietf.org>, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org
Message-ID: <1028723252.11911.1605112544538@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <1007260719.140376.1593854488478@email.ionos.com>
References: <1007260719.140376.1593854488478@email.ionos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev26
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:nJuKZVBhN7Y+sTWU8MQp+2/xsspPWv6tbZjW0zUgh6IkzeYEDKa s80h3qPc6vuyDdaTvzK3jmVaQkSTqkLO6SWcwL53nxwDjP1uqB6pma9gIlUWG44rqAWEyjj 8utIYG0QO5HmxbIxfBuNWQG+RJj+18ed/+L46xcrcksNJ3Zi77VUy+eWxHAgz0Vcox9NBQN 745UkguZwZGY5pIIdyaPw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:/u9f2vB8YSw=:TDPjA8Okf2c+9MZ4X4rUUq Rs+bA2slImEe7R2dJp/SwnUJxkx03qGpf9l4+8ZCZQ/nI+TgLAQNDbN9Js6Jo02d++0+kC8S4 NMyjUYMvpJhQ7AAeTpGeTlEZi946VD0DQmZc5pFHA+U4gVzx2qzW+3pejsw7Vgl1i5+nB36du aVjSylQile9jBA4ARBhTIVGTp7zXxvsLVWP3p9ljh9ynh90zE98ls2yFXHdL4n3kDVtKW79L2 l86Ea2Zhq/8AjgnQ8yuXRn0IWuC6rPl4PuZyZZRsEAgWu4RjZuAiI1djE3e3b94lbGOH9K9ij oaNIXaMnaeYGT9dbepZttdPUzYVZf6pI5zFi68MHu/rvvbuWi+JYSgsLcotha4TQcLydchJHy 1VqdNQCFFyWonmuUx4vyC8zP0QsODYrlnMAXjueuscacL3jub5NksuifkQq0m1v6yF0ZU1wOt Of9ZlMr48w==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/jOL_myFeKD0x4TtgROLajxHqvQ0>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:35:48 -0000

text version:
Ted,
In your opening email to the 400 highly respectable people on this list you say:
“As it happens, there are very few registrations in URI.ARPA, so we did not catch it and fix it before now.”


How did you "catch it"?
Was there a pending registration?
Is there still a pending registration?
It would really be bad to try to change the rules while something was pending.


I can't speak for the others but some of them might want to know why after almost 20 years of there being zero problems with RFC3405 it suddenly needs to get "fixed".

> On 07/04/2020 5:21 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ted,
> In your opening email to the 400 highly respectable people on this list you say:
> "As it happens, there are very few registrations in URI.ARPA, so we did not catch it and fix it before now."
> 
> How did you "catch it"?
> Was there a pending registration?
> Is there still a pending registration?
> It would really be bad to try to change the rules while something was pending.
> 
> I can't speak for the others but some of them might want to know why after almost 20 years of there being zero problems with RFC3405 it suddenly needs to get "fixed".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email