IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 17 July 2020 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 D793E3A0A0D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 pC7QIt6cGvkP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D508D3A0A09 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id q4so13770808lji.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gwwAbiTXWSXdkHJXJMgUoR55NzHuzStX7GcunNRPMUo=; b=CgtE/ysmrNcAc0fyxvCZLyOIPQSKvDfsFBdyCmwBrRPva1stZ4lDW6AP+ql3kEOtHk Nty7lxG5y0yqsiwRgWU/mfcvgYRF+QH1/crk0tCeTWSA1QQy6RW+oXRkGcU5jVhR1490 S5IWVHxDdMPTQSbpF4MyOcwQmIYoi+yCy9xFiDKT+ESv3rDJAvNVnxg/O8wUA+yNJCzZ uDlQnZ5UbiFmmrpxtgjiawhMjXTeX7ZOauQ4xNAcWeS5nkpfC6kSgZckjXLiBpeiiJsC qefY4MQTpFBIGliQd1rvhhsepufdjzI7VDU876YIO4WdaJ9hh1J9qZCvqMaoylLjbN0n 623Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gwwAbiTXWSXdkHJXJMgUoR55NzHuzStX7GcunNRPMUo=; b=bU09wVgyKtBjd+qVOiTNSY3KbXmti2Ydc0pP1Nyq/MEcLmDHKLKrz2ZyEcQtoAyw7T zoOL5eM1h6IIHRTPXxwK4ya+mmNgD7dcrK/QkoLkvkVmsh/hk6h/B+Ew/KNyNDAr8G+R 5dWNas6rdR9u0e2Lqlo8a1wKi6ys2Go1P/Fs+Mf2gmuL6Zf61jGGcaflkzownfsvs13/ zigKcEK7aPXC7X8im5dkTs+9U33LO2w7COH4+Mw9PYxUeHxqPL/ocgZrErF6NiuIUlHs n2EDxH4NAoTEmqTy5LnGwcFiYsYQLCtU3/ndApy9tN3rZo28gggtPXLNUUHgOGjQC1KA I7xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334cUYPak194XRaGQN4p/x+SFW7NhhkzOTAMa1p57j037GumzyX mrc4K1qruPP7zgTyg0Y7Yx5lc10IwTIU2FkjyBHdqsagbS2Ixg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysMJ5N5ENYrpkIMWBcvHzZ+0fR2VORY86B1ltWu0P271B8JE4ypJQ1pBEbsw8e2jji7e5BCdVWFBXiEN4Phpg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:120d:: with SMTP id i13mr4903279lja.153.1595009171620; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200710083152.3ED31F4071F@rfc-editor.org> <46066C32-79B1-4478-A77E-CF1F014F2B84@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <46066C32-79B1-4478-A77E-CF1F014F2B84@icann.org>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:05:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iKS+3vwwieBtTDOHzLgdhJkdp23dBrdEx+ucoF2PN48tQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se" <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NOgjNoOdMX8gCa9L5Z-EA679ey8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:06:16 -0000

Dear DNSOP,

The IESG statement on Errata is here:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/
Some cherry-picks:
"Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be
used to change what the community meant when it approved the RFC."
"Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that might
be different from the intended consensus when the document was
approved should be either Hold for Document Update or Rejected.
Deciding between these two depends on judgment. Changes that are
clearly modifications to the intended consensus, or involve large
textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear situations, small
changes can be Hold for Document Update.
Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an IANA
registration procedure, to something that might be different from the
intended consensus when the document was approved should be Rejected."

I personally think it would be useful for the registry to reflect what
is said in RFC 8624, but I don't think that this can be done with an
errata.
Seeing as I have not seen any support / "Oh, dur, that's that we
meant..." I'm going to be closing this as Rejected.

Please let me know by Friday July 24th if you strongly disagree...
W

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 10:18 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
>
> This errata should be rejected because it changes the decision of the IETF about the IANA registries. In specific:
>
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The document clearly has the intention to update the IANA registers, which is also stated in the document, but not in section 6 ("IANA Considerations").
>
> This is not true. There is literally no wording in the text that shows such intention.
>
> If the author of this incorrect "errata" wants the IANA registries to reflect the values in RFC 8624, they should create a new Internet Draft saying such. I believe there will be both support and opposition, but it is a good discussion to have now that we have consensus on what the implementation guidance is.
>
> --Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email