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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 11 September 2018 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 8EDE2130F39; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 0aWXReSNwaXO; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (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 3C190130F36; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w8BJrNID017057; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:53:23 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C91D22044; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:53:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F4D822042; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:53:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 950129200 (56.191.114.87.dyn.plus.net [87.114.191.56]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w8BJrLU7021251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:53:22 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Ben Campbell'" <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>, "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <3F59F95D-D175-4F1F-84A6-985524FD9CBB@nostrum.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?RE:_Proposed_IESG_Statement_on_t?= =?UTF-8?Q?he_use_of_the_=E2=80=9CUpdates=E2=80=9D_header?=
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:53:19 +0100
Message-ID: <015d01d44a09$178b1920$46a14b60$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQDV+m6+F4wv1k2JYB5bOMwfBLmDPgHiGAhXAQxhIfIBkOvWm6bEIRcg
X-Originating-IP: 87.114.191.56
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24088.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--0.952-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--0.952-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24088.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--0.951700-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +c13yJDs903xIbpQ8BhdbOYAh37ZsBDCLi2dwKiMR9zSgap63qByoWAh JwKJaQoQFYprEdoC+kx7gLUS6VsMHWMfTA8VcpiBQpxiLlDD9FW7nrAU9KQxUcbKqwGV3sczgK6 qCGa1Z9e7KT8e5NWWCsTKrSvo7uRnv1l2Uvx6idpTptoDfp6JrNmzcdRxL+xwKrauXd3MZDXR6k VvraNdYhI/oUXjWecxLUQDPJDdhGOS5R/MoUUEfWwC4QLXsrQDmHaa7s1AvohDqRispJwWTMREU CEry1aGnvsnuSDFWToxBxT50rze2qfItuohgjfnw/3NmPJsa4pNWfnUnboMLyBJEZlhLWrQQwym txuJ6y0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iBcvSF3C8KxrsQB4p2LoAGZmfEU>
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 19:53:29 -0000

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?

> 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