Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B923A052C for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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=oracle.com
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 uBuOd9g-oroO for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp2120.oracle.com (userp2120.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) (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 88B533A0528 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06UEmGgv069675 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:02:57 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=from : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version : subject : date : references : to : in-reply-to : message-id; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=1nGqVtcVVXUqUdLGRgskxCC03sOeyqOHC9jcrWbMmO4=; b=OzMQmhiTMOObKeQbeitGiccMaQ/4TEoD9ELRSB/l/iT8mze03ZVHe1iYuv54NJn1dqnA Rpi0WuozmP5tnjT0/xgUXighnVtToZVcluqhrS9LvNRTl/31vark8Uvh43ajginWzSOB jz+ftc/Yt7X8npkEpdHA2xvEwhs79u0otep48uyCCYNrZXIJiOeQcXhK0CZ3h1ZzPSxI IyACep/mivnt5/egorEMsE6nnkg4iwnLzs74pBmWlttuQwAJa9K+EvbK1wG7F0lG9SdQ K0tmP5VEH0K8SqC66bUDYehWg0wa1e6tzyB9tNbIhAXK/s2RkaraHA1vuU/ocQSjjQM2 ow==
Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 32hu1jv7mu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:02:56 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06UEmglR189272 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:02:56 GMT
Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 32hu5wxgen-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:02:54 +0000
Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 06UF2r0U009411 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:02:53 GMT
Received: from anon-dhcp-152.1015granger.net (/68.61.232.219) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:02:52 -0700
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:01:35 -0400
References: <HE1PR0702MB3772011E83C71FC05A28983F95700@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <65F221A3-3405-4F2C-99B6-278E8C2C0AD8@oracle.com> <HE1PR0702MB377297EAEE9040F8BDD7046D95710@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <8c6e035a-9b50-f485-794a-54f02619643c@talpey.com>
To: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8c6e035a-9b50-f485-794a-54f02619643c@talpey.com>
Message-Id: <0D94413C-0FB3-443C-AB5A-8CDBAE6766F7@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9698 signatures=668679
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007300109
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9698 signatures=668679
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007300109
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/KI0B06wqGDH3iJ6a-v_pROEDuaI>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:03:00 -0000

> On Jul 30, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> wrote:
> 
> On 7/30/2020 10:25 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Hi Chuck,
>> If Errata 2249 despite its status as a verified editorial errata is not editorial then lets leave it out of these changes. I really only want to propose things that are truly editorial and have the potential for cause issues for an implementor using this specification.
> 
> Totally agree with the goal, but this erratum is 10 years old (!) and
> was filed by someone who well-understands the situation. At a minimum
> it seems prudent to update the text to clarify this, perhaps while
> making a statement of fact that implementations to an earlier version
> might have differing behavior.
> 
> JMHO.

To be clear, my hesitancy is not with the reporter's expertise but with the length of time the error has been left uncorrected. No doubt it is a simple cut-and-paste typo.

However, the error has been uncorrected for 10 years. That opens the window for implementations that stick to the word of the spec rather than its intended meaning. I think we cannot change that language without due diligence or a thorough understanding of the interoperability implications. Certainly well within the purview of rfc5661bis, but I feel it is outside the arena of corrections that can be done without harm just before publication.

I'm open to changing my opinion if someone with experience in that area can convince us the proposed text change is totally harmless.

--
Chuck Lever