Re: [usefor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5537 (4468)

Julien ÉLIE <> Thu, 15 October 2015 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13851A1A76 for <>; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id juIJdd9yKVpT for <>; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:41d0:8:730b::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38A81A1A72 for <>; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D0460093; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:03:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MHYWCQ5ALKa7; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:03:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FD0F6008A; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:03:47 +0200 (CEST)
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, Barry Leiba <>, Charles Lindsey <>
References: <> <> <> <> <op.x6ihwuyp6hl8nm@localhost> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?= <>
Organization: TrigoFACILE --
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:03:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <>,, Russ Allbery <>, RFC Errata System <>
Subject: Re: [usefor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5537 (4468)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:03:52 -0000

Hi all,

It seems that the current thread is not archived in

Would it be possible to update the old <> address 
used to the current <> address?  (And if possible, update 
all addresses to in the contacts of the RFC Editor.)
Maybe it is the reason of the lack of these mails in the archives. 
Another possibility would be that the list is in the Cc: recipients 
instead of To:.


Julien ÉLIE

« – Essayons d'interroger ce garde habilement sans éveiller ses
   – Hep ! Où est enfermé Assurancetourix ? » (Astérix)

Le 15/10/2015 08:40, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
> On 10/14/2015 11:04 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> I'm fine with marking the erratum REJECTED.
>>>> When doing that, could you please add Russ's comment so as to give more
>>>> context for people that will eventually process that erratum in a future
>>>> revision of the RFC?  (If of course Russ and Harald are OK with that.)
>>> I am not familiar with what can and cannot be done with an erratum, but I
>>> think it is important that a permanent record of this problem is placed
>>> somewhere so that, if ever we proceed to Draft Standard (unlikely, perhaps,
>>> but nevertheless possible) then the matter will be picked up and the
>>> situation regularized.
>> Indeed.  I plan to make it "held for document update".
>> Barry
> I think the limit to an erratum is that an erratum can't override a WG
> decision.
> "Held for document update" is fine for "someone needs to look at this
> carefully if they are ever charged with updating the spec".
> In this case, my memory says that we deliberately chose to look away
> from what existing implementations do and instead say how things should
> function if people were allocating the pieces of functionality between
> the components of the ecosystem that we were imagining in the way they
> were imagined - in which the posting agent was under the user's control,
> and could sensibly correct the user's mistakes, while the injecting
> agent was under the service provider's control, and should insist on
> things being correct before it got there. Real implementations don't
> line up that neatly - the spec never says what the protocol between a
> posting agent and an injecting agent is.
> This may have been the wrong decision in retrospect, but I think the
> decision got made that way.