IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 31 May 2020 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
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 AB94D3A0AC8; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 VAGkapjR0shg; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-f179.google.com (mail-il1-f179.google.com [209.85.166.179]) (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 8F42F3A0AC7; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-f179.google.com with SMTP id r2so7252186ila.4; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:47:14 -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=4uSQNfSp//dDeRXqUZVZa5vl59cW3lUFIWM6gKIV+EA=; b=XQDR6VeYqkJ3ZzZ4yDD04WTbRoS3/OeLjA8SG3YJewU1LW0ctvmcMfKwEa8kprTb6q D9eTAtpmEAMTd9rum/OVSxwCFSOempVafT9HOLq40tkh9OuDoE8i6hlPitJ2Z8yoBCwP 25hooKRbJoNwuFLtF3bRTirFgOCpzbsFl6ca5cdYHVZG4xDG7EDFjkY+Z7rZ1st11s8F z7ZLcwQBLu0FxyLFRFehF8d/xntuVrD5p5WC05+lGzAIEmJw8flhbKJ95+urFdlgOitl wl63490wxMcDKdA468UgXXPlXcwNsEjO6uuvNCMuj9aGmSeLF8pIVAi0iFzZcEQ5eeEr T6Cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533EZTLTBsdMz9wgXh66sghYNVp8Mz4M50nsLDBkXADGItDNqlwY +hOClyUlmNiE3sAsSX12ZHmJh74sxFfgZYRdyNk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzT0TdbuPmfGBdlYvrqtLn2WWJr+MweuqH0BWt4I3yY1zfwtCb3K4bZUTk5Cnj9M6DkEpE+vKPrfezkvdhUimU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:10c:: with SMTP id t12mr2622567ilm.187.1590947233643; Sun, 31 May 2020 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <DFA83403-04F8-4801-8519-1E2BD2BD7AC7@episteme.net>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 13:47:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJLCrp1qJ-+iybNZu-YYNvN8N-vwxbvi9M64kWeF2=XEPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/tAwosl9j6Pumk81vEb6_ZNLlpaA>
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 17:47:16 -0000

> 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.  I
support the guidelines, but I also appreciate and support Ben's good
judgment.  I, at least, am happy to leave it at that.

(That said, I did mark John Levine's errata report against RFC 20 as HFDU....)

Barry

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status