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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 06 June 2021 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 5C0293A2177 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 10:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=dcrocker.net
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 UGt7EIoO_Dr4 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 10:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dormouse.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (dormouse.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.50]) (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 E4F183A2179 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 10:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6F321618; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:00:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout3.hostinger.io (100-96-18-89.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.18.89]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 15352214F3; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:00:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout3.hostinger.io ([UNAVAILABLE]. [145.14.159.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.96.18.89 (trex/6.3.1); Sun, 06 Jun 2021 17:00:25 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Shrill-Lettuce: 5a78f0d260e1a40d_1622998825765_3172496654
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1622998825765:685333957
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1622998825765
Received: from [192.168.0.106] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.62.181]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by nl-srv-smtpout3.hostinger.io (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id A29FC31C2E98; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1622998823; bh=ImHM4OjNwMJqHUFX7FHjRv7rL1Uvg/IpW6o3JC/8Bzk=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=GkIrY5t8q+azAqFCJLnb0fYg+th4e9sEpPrzBPuieO/60yo/TorZPCf2fmD9EwK3F hNem683BRBeJVlgJ6bUO2x+96OZAATnTLaJwuar37Dup6HwQ7MRmU0ppczFcUSyyoG U/cMre+uTAdNE8nDSAwqwEIJrCWMhMk9tQ0+YoWiLQ1b4MnnFM4DY/BHmOcQi/qAAE A2MzKx/3dRN/1KRXwDPBiAw59slUKi5JzIRAqCftorvvc/qnIV0YxtAvqLjeml5UBf fZxqKnkeojtWZHVJtPH4OSP8PGp6mJVx/IlMXyIjIVP6QeUgNneTTFf+qYuaUkjv+U +cX7CLmrSUK6w==
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, 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> <7289f66e-64c3-563d-af5f-7146bc7f5c14@tana.it>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <ee0cb9b3-f56f-a94d-6d1f-4e9d49c849c0@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 10:00:19 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7289f66e-64c3-563d-af5f-7146bc7f5c14@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/oLUdU6FVl1_0TLVX-DZfHUBpQ1Y>
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 17:00:34 -0000

On 6/6/2021 9:56 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 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?

Unfortunately, the administrative rule on RFC errata is that they are 
limited to corrections where what is written does not match what was 
intended.  That is, documentation errors, rather than -- such as here -- 
revised goals.

But, yeah.  The way to address a modest change is with a modest effort.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net