IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8552 (7064)

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 03 August 2022 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BEAC14CF1E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VjRG1c128ARW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30618C157B56 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id f20so20023731lfc.10 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 09:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=3+JnJgLlxygxx+4QkM9jrvHj6vgWVz7Demo1kdV2eJM=; b=bjP2xPUOsYQYBOB8hjxEH25GG2g4kBnvqsJdMb4sI8sRsJghX+7k6/wLXwsAfv1O6N 8OKNn23Vw4h0dm+NqbwDZmiRGQZRkeB+dm37yXFCegfSoozKV3A/Avuuzi3e6KU9QemJ TGfHl3ZlI5RTkl0GvPoqTv/IB1/L4Vn/kK6jf81zE0F14+e0bIEni85rId2FhsjevP/i b6600FY8NYQ5X+bSv5SxlP1ZWPx6yXFHW8JTa1Cm3GYiGvB66mDW2Qh9Tn6pI9JU17kx iCQBcHYZOvncsnmQrAT8jZUOo3Un+FBKGklGyauXzhDqYBtPrg6diCSwPgk4+61VLWzm TZtA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=3+JnJgLlxygxx+4QkM9jrvHj6vgWVz7Demo1kdV2eJM=; b=1Enn7NyarMTlQxg+5hJHLOxCq/4k7erJj707lkH3OIl4k0LFx1ZY4MAuaiYmFzXU9/ K6IIM5/ww8GSJLm661SeOVU2ZIQXUJLRdvF/BnxjNfPHw5MU8rHGa11LwxE3oeU91fTs Pl9ixcpGmz56oeVV96y1jYa7+/Z72xTAPz7F+u/v2Dxr2C6pbgslnS5dm7WW8EfRCLNy EPdpqYNI9oYEXSAD4dtimhV0kSQPAhFYmLMNu3I9Twpp16CfDA7opCOxjiBZGxDDDOfK /loHzqlygXqmFSr1B5qKaAS/li8LmRa+24zd68+l/FgKVTq9SbiJBUXell7JVROQm+Zh oN5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0u1Li+WPKsMMgubu4vzg88S9QpvxscmaqkFuNq8HkDBHiqy2Qw GkQC28ANPECs9R1hEU3KM6cwubrQJlJ7huPi86GkcQ6+
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6LagG7ULehrK8PgUmg41ytrqWAUhq+0DCUzVmR2btY41Q+NrRLnPENN2Gvs3nhfxQebIr9c2EQtZEwnSWf9u8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:39d6:b0:48a:f0ca:99ca with SMTP id k22-20020a05651239d600b0048af0ca99camr6440227lfu.571.1659545334380; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220802150413.975B589128@rfcpa.amsl.com> <5bc43fbf-d117-2cad-60cd-7f227f6f682a@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <5bc43fbf-d117-2cad-60cd-7f227f6f682a@bbiw.net>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 12:48:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+E_w5LVBwz0d9PKdVT29fK9Oj4JSVN8GBzzZT2XgeO4Vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch, dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000024fdce05e55902aa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0yC89vUjDVurXQ5pJ0s7E5hHYeE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8552 (7064)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 16:49:03 -0000

This seems to be the mail thread which discusses 7566/6118 :

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/d5KQEP1Ud1TxQpanNMY2_b0CpL8/

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 12:13 PM Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote:

> On 8/2/2022 8:04 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
>
> Section: 4.1.2.
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>  | URI        | _acct                 | [RFC6118]     |
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>  | URI        | _acct                 | [RFC7566]     |
>
> Notes
> -----
> Wrong reference. Note that is also has an impact to the IANA registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#underscored-globally-scoped-dns-node-names
>
>
> Folks,
>
>    1. Bernie, thanks for bringing this up
>    2. Using this case as an example, the history in the attrleaf
>    development seems concerning.  The RFC cited for this entry changes, over
>    the course of a number of I-D versions.  So, in -13 is was RFC 7553, -14 is
>    was RFC 7566, and in -15 it went to RFC 6118.
>    3. That the published version landed on the wrong choice should raise
>    a question possibly about process but especially about understanding.
>
> In Spring, 2018 and again in Fall, 2018, there was some focused discussion
> (see:  dnsop) about _acct, and related strings, and which citation to use
> for the enum-related values.  The choice bounced around, as I've cited.
> This includes having what is now being deemed the 'correct' choice in -14...
>
> Note that none of the cited documents refers to the exact string "_acct".
> So there is a derivation process that seems to be unclear. I believe the
> attrleaf RFC contains no pedagogy about this, but it probably should.
>
> Before doing the simple -- but possibly wrong -- thing of agreeing on a
> new -- or, rather, returning to an old -- better RFC citation, I suggest
> there be some community discussion about the why of the right choice and
> consideration of how to document that, this time, this latest choice is the
> truly correct one.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorkingbbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email