IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Time to say "NO!!" to AUTH4200 (Re: AUTH48 checking the different formats (Re: Public archival of AUTH48 communications))

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 28 February 2022 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 CB1483A1751; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:24:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.186, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 zdoyp6AY1uvt; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 8129F3A16EE; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 21SNOatv020703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:24:43 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:24:36 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, admin-discuss@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Time to say "NO!!" to AUTH4200 (Re: AUTH48 checking the different formats (Re: Public archival of AUTH48 communications))
Message-ID: <20220228232436.GF12881@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <CADaq8jeaDaSBczpzcDDPs-K4u+YP7V9C3dZ0Ntj5Y7sRK-HegA@mail.gmail.com> <28081.1646063116@localhost> <CADaq8jfw=sHe+kCcjTMfqYZFtXo27M0LJmwSwd69dTL6c=uWRw@mail.gmail.com> <30A5489A-BD18-49CF-AB34-2E9B6E759B8C@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <30A5489A-BD18-49CF-AB34-2E9B6E759B8C@tzi.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mA26pUXF_FJ2U-EFm_BGNNaGnYE>
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:24:56 -0000

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:17:24AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > A full review should not be necessary. 
> 
> I wish that were true...

IMO a full review is necessary, not least to ensure that the document
remains self-consistent and that any changes applied during editing are
uniformly applied to all relevant parts of the document, not just in the
subset of places that the editor noticed.

This is analogous to a situation that arises when doing code review.
If you change an API's semantics, you had better go around and check
all the callers of that API to see if they need adjustments, not just the
callers of the API that your test suite happens to exercise.  With
specifications we do not have the rigid rules of function names to identify
the places to check, and the safe thing to do is read the whole document
with any changes that were made fresh in mind.

-Ben

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status