Re: [VCARDDAV] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6350 (4213)

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 29 December 2014 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C344B1A8F4D for <>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:51:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TFIQ8hmfWGku for <>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39AF61A8F42 for <>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id hv19so11784207lab.0 for <>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:51:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zY86gdbnm4ntbv1Jt8ezbmpY+FxOlIPu3nOsbeeAA4c=; b=VdEi1mZJs9v0vMIzmMnc5q3x4224wThZpOpp5AFoLG8xzCrR6fy1rTqstOjafExtoT tnt+FVd1UllPsV3bAwt3IrL7thEeJUJJL2Yrz2oU6djU/jzRStRJ6aNYd2h8i8v+vbgv 0dEC92ZO3DXOp/JFAy4o3lfZN35W1D6XB7vEa1oVWzR1/epPS1tOB8z0c7yY6Uc7dVEs Cs8xul0XRA4GhAwmCf9eLvoZS+WR8aMDB661hwL3sQqBQQBX0mu+VmDVLR7rOcprVVgh lV1zuGXayjdcNjFWcbT5cZZ+Jpa1vFPUX84CFjra20Ll993iNaQTpkfTTVokMVvzTyNt TQ1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id f5mr35601608lbv.21.1419886260740; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:51:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:51:00 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: q4hkzlkmPZH_GX_rH8OQEuieslI
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Eric Vought <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Pete Resnick <>, CardDAV <>, RFC Errata System <>
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6350 (4213)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:51:03 -0000

> 1) What should the current spec say to make clear its current meaning given
> that errata are not permitted to change its meaning? and
> #1 is my real concern for purposes of the errata
> I am unfamiliar with this group's process. When I worked with
> interpretations for IEEE PASC, there was a basic form response to the effect
> of, "The spec says what it says, but what it says currently makes no sense
> (for this case), therefore implementations shall not depend upon that
> combination. The underlying question will be resolved in a future version."
> I imagine you have a similar way of wording that? That is more or less what
> I was expecting to get back.

Well, we do have something of that nature: I can mark the errata
report "Rejected", which means either that it's wrong or that it's
outside the scope of the errata system, or I can mark it "Held for
Document Update" (HFDU), which means that it's a reasonable errata
report, but the resolution needs to be left for a future document

I do have some latitude here, and, while I see this as a "Rejected"
case (on the "out of scope" grounds), your point that it's hard (or
impossible) to build an implementation of this feature that reliably
interoperates... makes me inclined to use the latitude and go with
"HFDU" instead.

So that's what I intend to do, unless someone screams in the next
couple of days.