Re: [ftpext] RFC Errata for consideration

"William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net> Tue, 03 August 2010 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wmaton@ottix.net>
X-Original-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2E33A69EE for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dnQx0iGjkLS for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iskra.ottix.net (iskra.ottix.net [IPv6:2001:410:90ff::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE963A68E9 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iskra.ottix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iskra.ottix.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o73Mp5Mb015914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:51:05 -0400
X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 iskra.ottix.net o73Mp5Mb015914
Received: from localhost (wmaton@localhost) by iskra.ottix.net (8.14.4/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id o73Mp5s4015911; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:51:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:51:05 -0400
From: "William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net>
To: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimqJxcTzH2BQM+NhGixM5Z+kpSVnUBauQSiqftJ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008031843520.2300@iskra.ottix.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007301540330.15461@iskra.ottix.net> <AANLkTimqJxcTzH2BQM+NhGixM5Z+kpSVnUBauQSiqftJ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: ftpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ftpext] RFC Errata for consideration
X-BeenThere: ftpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ftpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext>
List-Post: <mailto:ftpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:50:44 -0000

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:

[snip]
> Errata
> The representation types defined in FTP are described in Section 3.1,
> Data Representation and Storage, or more specifically 3.1.1, Data
> Types. They don't seem to be described in 3.2, Establishing Data
> Connections.

Good catch.

> also, RFC 1123 contains a number of updates to RFC 959 (& others).
> (presumably, "Updates: XXXX" wasn't in use in 1989?) should this be
> reported as errata to RFC 1123?

My suspicion is that RFC 1123's errata discussion of RFC 959 should be 
reported under the new system against RFC 959, if only to capture that 
errata more easily.  On the other hand, not knowing enough about the 
mechanics about handling documents of that vintage, I'd wonder if the ADs 
could tell us if this sets a bad precedent of some kind.  (i.e., review 
every RFC in that light and start going off and using the errata reporting 
for every nit).

Then again, this could open up the discussion for creating an expanded RFC 
959bis ... !

Personally if RFC 1123 shows us some errata (and I admit to have never 
come across that RFC) in RFC 959, perhaps it's best to out it for folks 
really only looking at RFC 959.

I wonder if a survey of RFCs that 'touch' RFC 959 in some way isn't in 
order?

wfms