Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for rfc8601 erratum (smtp.remote-ip), was Do is need a new ptype?

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:23 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> That's not what the RFC Editor erratum system is for.  The document
> >> reflects what the WG intended to publish at the time, so this isn't an
> >> erratum, it's a new change to the specification.
>
> Yes, as DE you could change it without an erratum.  However, an erratum
> would
> serve as a justification to any reader who followed the definitions and
> noticed
> a mismatch.
>

No, I don't believe the designated experts are free to make edits to the
registry spontaneously.

I've never seen an erratum used to cause a change to a registry, but
there's a first time for everything.

The thing I note is that you're proposing here an erratum that
retroactively claims a change to RFC8601 in anticipation of an RFC that
came later (RFC8617).  But it doesn't seem like the WG really thought of
this at the time it advanced RFC8601 for publication.  Indeed, the explicit
definition of the "smtp" ptype in RFC8601 Section 2.3 is unchanged from the
document it replaced.  So again, this doesn't seem like proper use of an
erratum.

I think this group would make a better use of its time by discussing
> rfc7489bis
> than rfc8601bis.


Indeed, yet here we are... :-)


> If group consensus can be enough for the time being, an
> erratum can also serve as a reminder.  So I ask for it:
> [...]
>

I think we need guidance from our Area Directors here.  I think I'm fine
with making the change, but I believe this is the wrong way to do it.

-MSK