Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 06 June 2021 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2C53A2499 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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=iecc.com header.b=fa+lqgCM; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=JWgFIHdC
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 GyAVVIg_OBDP for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 823B73A2496 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 88916 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2021 18:56:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=15b51.60bd1a79.k2106; bh=uts2lPL58pMpO4zTyxg8QcKhJ7gPsMHyEaBYrzVPhL4=; b=fa+lqgCMYTWaEdDdWdyugwQNxDvkSWedNjspVv8+sOqYutOQmaXAZqLZUQ4PBgZVlmhP3VUxxv0tz9Sw15BCAx0/yZvzlpa1rb72JCvXe51wFkU/tMTbDVx/VMc9zdGNMsytpqF5agQzd30e2bxQL4b8e8betHhwIlLsS4JhJI3Dq88RCzWnT8/+V6DAK/NhGRqRA5jAX66hzhlfO6MHMKHtGeRVm+ujuMvV8QG9TFMlYK3Fwo+AY0h1Fb4tCdBqQp8ahLKswKtsfR6AuoB9ezMTbqgv0UyyPWU7ldYN2piyR667m8qUeLu+FURv2isr/MaJLdAzpD01haP0PZ5v5Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=15b51.60bd1a79.k2106; bh=uts2lPL58pMpO4zTyxg8QcKhJ7gPsMHyEaBYrzVPhL4=; b=JWgFIHdCBArUeQLR7MjaaAOIWhV6O47yn+wSTW9Pid59BJq5nubBcVj3G0qR1vb36DCCZvfArEqAMN8tIwyHJ6HumBE1HqohpMeBz3kWz9M3PDy7mThovY78DcAiUHzsnAVJl8x0lvV/xiSgGEtpC+ap/+ZrGTJMaxGsSaUYbis1wjfKbmvY+IvQkXsp8SDH/pHqxKz4sRQOg58auVkzdTPCcuf5B2Tf/nloj1t3Pt7XeIErA/YMZZgLlSHi9niOT6hxjEcf+zBEb2kZuTYg/JRKQU0K61bmBMPA1S8tf445e55DZp3L87WBBGvnK+F7Rx4yuKlPmrr3Nj1iePuHvg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 06 Jun 2021 18:56:57 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 06775CC9D0E; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:56:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 6 Jun 2021 14:56:55 -0400
Message-Id: <20210606185656.06775CC9D0E@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
In-Reply-To: <E863AF380A69FAD9C7CFBEB2@PSB>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/IGSe3L4FCcztKxwPbLZ98ssib8Q>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 18:57:08 -0000

It appears that John C Klensin  <john-ietf@jck.com> said:
>> But, yeah.  The way to address a modest change is with a
>> modest effort.
>
>And I await a description --other than the errata signpost idea
>mentioned above-- as to how to make a change in this area with a
>modest effort, presumably one about which IETF consensus can be
>asserted but that does not require an I-D, notification of (and
>discussion including) as many of those who participated in the
>EAI effort as were still interested, IETF Last Call, etc.

One of the things on my long list as sort-of-RFC-editor is a way to do
incremental updates to RFCs, likely with version numbers, so we only have
to reapprove the sections that have changed.

I still don't think it's worth opening up RFC 6531 unless we have a lot more to change.