IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] [Errata Verified] RFC7889 (5726)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 20 May 2019 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFC3120090; Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, THIS_AD=0.062, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 utU6Br3UiHiG; Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-f177.google.com (mail-it1-f177.google.com [209.85.166.177]) (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 52AA8120046; Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-f177.google.com with SMTP id i63so1888009ita.3; Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RqcUUYxT5tFnaXZJ9rbxLr3GcTTiaNelytDCHQ1nupI=; b=VyaH9c4K9FDiN0AOJ0cc/wW+4vKHm4UDOkAg5RYuJEVyEgmxI3j0a2ihfl0ngwG11Y v8A818YtjINX3sKotAQuCdkLNl+GRbu1HXbuZloQsLm2UbhpEqM3MWL02AWeYq9IVubC D/oNTzzh8r/jOHaHThMua9OPmhBIPa7kxEE3KFBhJRxVW17myBYBySGPQeaDZdlIhgRr mKQjYvJr+OxRKLnsGJBq2MruD3P8/2JNQCZl6rUTcrtDKegjr2VREZEXazeMcDNENjVg M9RWc8JIDr2I33Qy0IkuspDrewmfzqg683w3T/5obb9GEy7STHAuWCv0NC5gyzGA/uwK tOiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXrB21U0tKhxHnhN8qgZmjoqQ684ibsvEOcauZiqrDeW+1fEX0V yJGiHf9MoSifcZ81W0CbhYBISjY3fy6ycCBiumI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxjoMaRYj3y6yqm5EDznznC1y4l1ETDMq82aVTl/zgNB5GWujti/SaKYtPd/+DSzUhLzwXqw5dXTcA1C24lPJI=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:4d87:: with SMTP id l129mr1498626itb.80.1558396776365; Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190520223559.B7DDFB82E6D@rfc-editor.org> <c07db880-06ef-45de-b8ca-74ab3c0583a8@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c07db880-06ef-45de-b8ca-74ab3c0583a8@www.fastmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 19:59:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+BsZE17S=UQT7ju1uegQqg0VS=y0RH-SXsgpihJ6vD_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stan Kalisch <stan@glyphein.mailforce.net>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "Jayantheesh S.B" <jayantheesh.sb@gmail.com>, Narendra Singh Bisht <narendrasingh.bisht@gmail.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, imapext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/jXPjmOR3lsD0e8dvWip2v3qadPg>
Subject: Re: [imapext] [Errata Verified] RFC7889 (5726)
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 23:59:39 -0000

>> Editorial, though, because it's in examples.  The ABNF is the authoritative place, and that's correct.
>
> This is helpful to know, and when you put it like that, makes complete sense to me.  I suppose part
> of my confusion stems from the fact that I reported an erratum for an example in an RFC about two
> years ago and it was verified as technical.  Is this something that varies across disciplines?

No, I think it's something that varies according to the judgment of
different ADs.

The IESG errata guidelines
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-processing-rfc-errata-ietf-stream/>
say this:

<< Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems
or significant confusion should be Verified. >>

That's kind of vague.  This AD takes that to mean that an error in an
example should be "Verified" (rather than "Held for Document Update"),
but that it's editorial, not technical.  Other ADs have different
interpretations.

Perhaps it'd be nice if there was complete consistency, but
individuals are individuals, and we don't agree on
<strike>anything</strike> everything.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email