Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the “Updates” header

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 11 September 2018 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78EAB130F39; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tRt6iHPFGpSP; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 E1041130F36; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.95] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w8BJvdMj072393 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:57:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.95]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <04D05308-DA8F-40BA-A4A3-4002CF1A176C@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7227D223-26F6-426D-9CA1-AE01E0E15B31"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_Proposed_IESG_Statement_on_the_use_of_the_?= =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9CUpdates=E2=80=9D_header?=
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:57:38 -0500
In-Reply-To: <015d01d44a09$178b1920$46a14b60$@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
References: <59F6DED7-8D39-4206-8268-22AB6A99A876@nostrum.com> <9a505c33-3327-a13f-f5ce-4fac360169b1@nostrum.com> <013501d449fe$b0c8fdb0$125af910$@olddog.co.uk> <3F59F95D-D175-4F1F-84A6-985524FD9CBB@nostrum.com> <015d01d44a09$178b1920$46a14b60$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GVlGaVjmGrNI6MBXhiSp_BQfl5E>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:57:42 -0000


> On Sep 11, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; wrote:
> 
> Ben,
> 
> Thanks for your time.
> 
>> The question of compliance came up in internal IESG discussion.
>> 
>> I think that whenever “compliance” comes up in discussion, we are off-mission.
>> RFCs exist to enable interoperability. Whether an implementation complies with
>> an RFC is a red herring; what matters is if it interoperates with other
>> implementations.
> 
> So when you write in the proposed statement...
> 
>>> In particular, the headers do not, by themselves,
>>> imply a normative change to the updated RFC, nor do they, by themselves, imply
>>> that implementers must implement the updating RFC to continue to comply with
>>> the updated one.
> 
> ... is this off-mission or a red herring?

It was an attempt to disclaim any any meaning of “compliance”. So maybe I mispoke; statements to the effect that “this is not about compliance” are at least somewhat less off-mission :-)



> 
>> From that perspective, I think questions about whether an
>> implementation continues to “comply” are irrelevant.
> 
> Why put something irrelevant in your proposed statement?
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>