Re: [Doh] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8484 (6033)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 30 March 2020 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C5C3A0831 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 lVoqDr-oFMlj for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (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 484743A082F for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with ESMTPS id 02UHOJ6e026051 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:24:20 GMT
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:24:17 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:24:17 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
CC: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>, David Lawrence <tale@dd.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8484 (6033)
Thread-Index: AQHWBrgKGPGAIfmDfkOREEY9eRpX5A==
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:24:17 +0000
Message-ID: <8FCCBEAC-F86C-4454-BC8A-3E637539BBEB@icann.org>
References: <20200330155304.45AD8F4074B@rfc-editor.org> <CALaySJJ3dAEebgyz==PoSqnhSzFiHcxh0kmynRYBcD6Vjvm+6w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJK-FNqt-uHOz6oqANj8Xpwt7BOQkO6Ut-iAZ_OY-arO5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJK-FNqt-uHOz6oqANj8Xpwt7BOQkO6Ut-iAZ_OY-arO5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD44B450-A31D-4F45-BE89-E3748ED80033"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-03-30_07:2020-03-30, 2020-03-30 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/aqQuw-iXo_a_9f4meE8k_GVwoo0>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8484 (6033)
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:24:26 -0000

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:32 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
> The proposed change substantively changes the text and cannot be
> approved through an errata report.  

I agree with Barry, even though I believe that what Mohamed is asking for could have been what the WG or the IETF wanted, had they seen this proposed change while the document was being developed. For example, when I read the proposed change, I thought "of course he's right about HTTP redirection"; however, I don't know if other people who are more literate about HTTP would agree.

> My inclination is "Rejected", as I
> do believe the text says what it's intended to say (so it's not an
> erratum), but I could be convinced that "held for document update" is
> better if the document editors weigh in.

"held for document update" normally indicates that the erratum is believed to be valid. We don't know that without going through WG Last Call and IETF Last Call again. Given how heavily this document was discussed before publication, I do not think it is appropriate to change it with an erratum.

I have not heard of any developer misunderstanding the current words in a way that would be fixed by this rewording. Further, the bit about HTTP redirection is a technical change (possibly an oversight, or possibly it was left out on purpose by those who understand it better). 

--Paul Hoffman