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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 06 June 2021 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 E03913A2165 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 09:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 ofpxnWmix8Pt for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 09:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 C5CA33A2163 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1622998620; bh=YoNlRMtFFFUpb+vgUI4ScfAcAXaj8zbtizI4PpTfluo=; l=445; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ANAnEU+3hDQ7cba6gEiSWi8U3Jv7bhM+3PAaVKy5qoY5Ba4ehCcJeRP8cPehkbkFG XVh1kzLaYneBfSMH7KUzG5Vd02UoM/fPC5sti5yAySnHdVYTps7BJVxqpNoMtRsDpd f/ie91J4n5Rf2hWxQpzXIXVisO4OzPsE5+kKPMSlkxdMLMzbdYo5ft573v7db
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC026.0000000060BCFE5B.000013D3; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 18:56:59 +0200
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
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>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <7289f66e-64c3-563d-af5f-7146bc7f5c14@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 18:56:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <196A7A6D696C799266EC7F8F@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/hc9LoLpTiljBPxcCHu6uhRcuraw>
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 16:57:10 -0000

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?


Best
Ale
--