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

Valdis Kl ē tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> Sun, 06 June 2021 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <valdis@vt.edu>
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 71A233A25ED for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 12:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=vt-edu.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 fp1jFthxJpBM for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 12:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (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 B8CB03A25EC for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 12:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id k4so14792635qkd.0 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 12:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vt-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:date:message-id; bh=+jKd6sq/efeRRFMDvi2d0GvN4ptIVkJw+/jKbel8xwA=; b=hBK93x5OJ6/8JzA86C3c+0unSo6nIHqjuqeBf1dz52yB8N3hOWA/j5Z0aNt+598WhJ ZkeLC9+3uZrC7bfyz644uluEPlvLZOpE0Nk7uNOiSAPMUsY9qFB+08oCQE5qFiafAJ3J NmGD9DhTjfoIUm+MGbVnf/F/ooFu5jbq5g1s8nZWqVz90FORdBHnMg4rMZLpPExQsg1O hSkc+zQ5s2zCbNMfqRZ3B0UW7HcMoSgT9iz/UknL8F5Z6Oa2vAFKP2jfgyIUORbNixkP 8k0c//w5AxZxrYivhRN+ziRn6NvMSR+K9j1L8rp4MWHgR6swV64y0WwvMLO679S39uO6 kVxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:date:message-id; bh=+jKd6sq/efeRRFMDvi2d0GvN4ptIVkJw+/jKbel8xwA=; b=s80xO51sWiua79Ke/lIhnqimI/ed2/jTJIgvDsBNWp3zIpi2d/14kGwzdDTqZ0u4f9 xrf6ajomR3GkEJBEW127HkxIDkeYo02mEl7iZIIpCBOEGKxHWoikT/DRdqfKZ7rgfBWk Y6d93KLpCZ4yGJ59vZEk/nsb3mZSP2ifUdzfUDUd9SqjrvZcgFF+c+iiTFcbBxKLU9s/ SXgLo0QDqoI43+CN7ijDU9cJk0BLblOM8lehQz2CZrPdCj8pDdHhhxzNlY44qIwOuERn 4X4SElbrx5fJsa98hew/V5nadBTwaV8tczepRWzl/YEDHnJsmAW1xyItj+P5fpg21ytO Ukwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533caUkxd/IhEVrZDOXV+RsW7XJktzWpxnQh7vj0qBddf4/RuguJ 9pqoh4O9tjrbitPyZaFoc9wqeEx008qFjA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPx+nmD45aRUDxPjyFZh/IjIgqAqYMwAAN0Ba6ESu3mOOA3L9MVQEKDSFD1+ff6V0ygzrnUQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2989:: with SMTP id r9mr13891233qkp.391.1623008600838; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 12:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing-police ([2601:5c0:c380:d61::359]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k15sm2522337qti.65.2021.06.06.12.43.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 06 Jun 2021 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis@vt.edu>
From: "Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
X-Google-Original-From: "Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7+dev
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <7289f66e-64c3-563d-af5f-7146bc7f5c14@tana.it>
References: <20210525182946.079748B872C@ary.qy> <EFDA46E00EFF0E48802D046A@PSB> <2021052700585304660213@cnnic.cn> <YK7E1dBKneP8B8Ib@straasha.imrryr.org> <01RZNI90M6SS0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <E23639ADA7487360C9B5A93C@PSB> <01RZPUQVP8TU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <e9a6ce3e-3f83-a221-d132-fd021a2b5002@dcrocker.net> <F7279E1A825BAAA33F28BA85@PSB> <a8e45f33-3678-0a30-cca2-7f12c609e232@dcrocker.net> <C744AD1CDF9E8214916463BB@PSB> <61d523d4-7941-a506-639e-b2fb558e1bd4@dcrocker.net> <196A7A6D696C799266EC7F8F@PSB> <7289f66e-64c3-563d-af5f-7146bc7f5c14@tana.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1623008598_9767P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 15:43:19 -0400
Message-ID: <13303.1623008599@turing-police>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/frAD4vOZtso40b27gGI3nvo3OOA>
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 19:43:26 -0000

On Sun, 06 Jun 2021 18:56:58 +0200, Alessandro Vesely said:
> On Sat 05/Jun/2021 20:14:28 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> > (2) At the risk of being even more pragmatic about your "very
> > pragmatic" proposal, I know of no way to make an authoritative
> > change in a standards track RFC -- whether one word or a few
> > paragraphs -- without generating an I-D, having it discussed in
> > the community, going through IETF Last Call, and publishing a
> > new RFC.
>
>
> How about an erratum?

This smells more like a BCP.  But I'm not sure one thing like that qualifies for
a BCP by itself, and I'm not seeing the energy needed for a wider-reaching BCP.