Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Errata Verified] RFC7800 (6187)

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Sun, 31 May 2020 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1160B3A0AE3; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 UhsKGO_FBoaM; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE07C3A0AE1; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E11AEEEAC6; Sun, 31 May 2020 12:58:57 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LZhfhoqlcFhD; Sun, 31 May 2020 12:58:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.10] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98AF1AEEEA81; Sun, 31 May 2020 12:58:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@mit.edu>, "Michael Jones" <mbj@microsoft.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "John Bradley" <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "oauth WG" <oauth@ietf.org>, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 12:58:54 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5683)
Message-ID: <B417238F-E380-44F0-9C3C-7184F5931D3B@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLCrp1qJ-+iybNZu-YYNvN8N-vwxbvi9M64kWeF2=XEPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200531013404.4528BF40721@rfc-editor.org> <AA62FB03-89F3-4931-AB7C-0BE281970A2E@episteme.net> <20200531040924.GM58497@kduck.mit.edu> <DFA83403-04F8-4801-8519-1E2BD2BD7AC7@episteme.net> <CALaySJLCrp1qJ-+iybNZu-YYNvN8N-vwxbvi9M64kWeF2=XEPQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/1OE4eCgj12X6g9q1AyDd-XHqA5o>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Errata Verified] RFC7800 (6187)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 17:59:03 -0000

On 31 May 2020, at 12:47, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> But 
>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/, 
>> in particular:
>>
>> Only errors that could cause implementation or deployment problems or 
>> significant confusion should be Verified.
>> Things that are clearly wrong but could not cause an implementation 
>> or deployment problem should be Hold for Document Update.
>> Typographical errors which would not cause any confusions to 
>> implementation or deployments should be Hold for Document Update.
>>
>> Did something change these criteria?
>
> They're guidelines, not absolute rules, and judgment is expected.

Sure, but I was replying to Ben's statement that, "The new text is 
clearly the right thing, and there is no need to debate it if/when the 
document gets updated.  'Don't hold it; do it now', so to speak". That's 
not what Verified ever meant before. If the meaning has changed, that's 
fine, but someone should let the community know and update the IESG 
Statement. (Personally, I'm all for that, as I've found the current 
definitions absurd and confusing. All clearly wrong Editorial errata 
should be marked "Verified", IMO.) But that's not about applying 
judgement; that's changing the definition of the terms used.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best