Re: [precis] RFC 8264 / 8265 Order of rules

Christian Schudt <christian.schudt@gmx.de> Sat, 09 December 2017 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <christian.schudt@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4FE127342 for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:39:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 D1xGsq09Wmie for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:39:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 D7E281201F8 for <precis@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:39:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from christihudtsmbp.fritz.box ([88.77.188.33]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M2L2a-1fFKWx3iwW-00s5HW; Sat, 09 Dec 2017 12:39:51 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Christian Schudt <christian.schudt@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <3c7ba81b-190d-639b-d992-8d0125e8b33e@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:39:55 +0100
Cc: precis@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4388F9AE-82CA-4365-A505-FC2AEA5B6747@gmx.de>
References: <0207F020-32D2-4181-A020-3143BD8E88FE@gmx.de> <CAHVjMKFYO=9twJeJkM7YCv1tT6Fv=4Psw482EPS43sedMyeiSQ@mail.gmail.com> <3c7ba81b-190d-639b-d992-8d0125e8b33e@mozilla.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:skWDL50YYOKM9ksiDTCCrUByqLGsxcLZ5XW+VEOonhL7683OpvC XfiadN6tHmx5M6gB/HbKM5TsBrMtNJfe933lCRjLqakqJ4jJQfPGtvsiHtPdRKvEFNGelIN 9nSZ6duHYqu98QBz0BGhYDjBKbu3NQEMTFojrG9nQ7jRTOlE/oltHwRzubRk1hf+NjlJiGf ftQlSca+lzrXiaYNUQTkA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:6zulAuK+Emg=:E7hiHKSELvKcc/41XIw1Oh 0W4LoXihW/zs1roQnR2zyhiIgJ1GJ9gVmj+WNJ8ZzX1HN1pbW95ml5KDnMRyLJbh5+EFgWFsA RUTaSLhqG0EP0zBSRmMYtcI1mf88+P25yp5vzDHXwxyDADeKNmEU8P/wutaabUvAdP+3duICJ fNiy8q1H8y2alqb1zUSM8IBCeKNak4Xz1uhxuIV+Ef+R1OtH3NiUUF1aKBW0im/99Sc2TBZE8 VO7j6ExDCXUfqprlL4F9QzoRO39Hmqkuin++b5EzJHAoZFxKzbQzTIh0eVssGJy4PKXheZbHs px/sn91ucbjpFwhysG3NbqPV/y/a9K2ukcY7i7XONz0tG8WmzrpOtZcVn56uuRdSju8g+QdEb P3EJ5cRcHZiUEleafCINIIFHZCrFJ1QjKXQr4qYQaraJE4YU44Sly33QTulzVGkK6OPyGZJCt x8dreu41ed/VdSvjpNW7H0kljPT166EuOHUfCwmeKD0iuyPqts3gI5+dr2jKxrOhGeGE5/Iwg ndVIOM2CTzAj55uttNnX5CR63N+whtMDyMiWEccj7XvGRdF1wlCF5OF00CS5Kq5KW7wNN1TvU Ng7Ib2WunPG6E7Y8yZGUfZddEs6cyp95nGrek03c9tm8wDksgm+10SIClDgISWkM9kvAXSGlv Iqr/tJczRuv6ZsYIRBoU4VBcLfKHpSiCuf+W7uKMouTPle/QTJ7ZEqiWXzNrnOpmYhA7yQafh yfZRy/TqMCvmf77+ayKroegwjK7j6kGpWpJyVkPecF1ddxVM0pqyUoVL4xYRKS6QjlOn7j/9w U6IQJHLvAZ/t/tRrkNx00RMYhR/8US4T5bDJMAV7WX+4PsFlQQ=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/ivu_qlhC279NdXBARRj7AsLXWk8>
Subject: Re: [precis] RFC 8264 / 8265 Order of rules
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/precis/>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 11:39:57 -0000

> 
> Sigh.
> 
> I'm sorry that we failed to make things clear and consistent.
> 
> I agree with Bill that implementations should follow the order of rules
> in Section 7 of RFC 8264.
> 
> Let me think about how we can clarify things. That might involve filing
> an erratum against RFC 8265.
> 
> Peter

Ok, thanks for clarifying it (again). My implementation will keep on following the rules in 8264 then.

— Christian