Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 23 May 2014 23:51 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D631A017E for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 7yGpe83XhnbV for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB47C1A017D for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1WnzEp-000Iap-Ld; Fri, 23 May 2014 19:51:00 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 19:51:35 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <E45DDA85C9C092E7F6D7EF90@[192.168.1.102]>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKCTkk7A=c83VJxwxpyZyDRN6oQcmDJc2NP26e0+HmFKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140522105930.779E218000D@rfc-editor.org> <p06240600cfa513ac7ab4@99.111.97.136> <1CD96F1912CBFF4A6A296711@192.168.1.102> <p06240604cfa5730dd57a@99.111.97.136> <CALaySJKCTkk7A=c83VJxwxpyZyDRN6oQcmDJc2NP26e0+HmFKw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yam/6kNpFE-nncj_-UK3E5VvTDBF1l8
Cc: yam@ietf.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 23:51:58 -0000
--On Friday, 23 May, 2014 18:01 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > Is it sufficiently important to add the note that I should ask > the RFC Editor to pull it back, so I can add the note and > re-verify? Depends... If you expect that Randy and/or myself will revise the doc within the next year or two, this discussion thread suffices and there is no need to do anything else -- not going to forget any time soon. I imagine we could quibble about the text and spin up a version with the change in less time than we've spent on it in the last week, but getting it through Last Call and approved (and preventing that from turning into a debate about the fundamental philosophy of email and its relationship to the DNS and the differences in character among the three Pu-ers I got to compare yesterday) would be your problem, not ours. Almost the same answer applies if the expectation is that the spec will never be revised: IMnvHO, we are spending a lot of time hair-splitting about fussy original text for which a careful reading of 5321 (without which anyone trying to do much with 6409 is in big trouble anyway), good sense, and operational experience and necessity will almost always provide the right answer. On the other hand, if you expect there to ultimately be a revision by someone with no memory of active participation in YAM, done after Randy and I are sufficiently retired to be unlikely to a review and/or have forgotten all about this, then, yes, let's erect a large sign that effectively says "the original text is defective, the proposed change isn't quite right, and someone revising the spec better dig through old email messages and think carefully about exactly what to say and how". best, john
- [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995) RFC Errata System
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Barry Leiba
- [yam] [Errata Verified] RFC6409 (3995) RFC Errata System
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Randall Gellens
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Barry Leiba
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Randall Gellens
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Randall Gellens
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Barry Leiba
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Randall Gellens
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Barry Leiba
- [yam] [Errata Verified] RFC6409 (3995) RFC Errata System
- Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (39… Tony Finch