Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> Sat, 24 May 2014 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@qualcomm.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 AA3A71A01F9 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 May 2014 12:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <qCT51igSvogf>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qCT51igSvogf for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 May 2014 12:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A64B1A01DD for <yam@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 May 2014 12:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1400958535; x=1432494535; h=cc:x-ojodefuego:message-id:in-reply-to:references: x-mailer:date:to:from:subject:content-type; bh=NrIizAhqQp2lZet0q2CiCHwfIXIurdOn/7UtM/fp9g8=; b=ZQa8KsBjGQlZ4ky+hYPN4nfB+h8OoZv2TYWC9+gX9l2yqYWdz1G+Wi1C Ozg+ORE+fFymdDY4UtGRZ5Kjm9NZ9fS1hkRrpIUOb9gBF0LfNvx0Q+I4H XT+NfQoUiIMTaxPqPmVrL+v4I9fdrQ4P3YhsrZQbGBicWI+Me06CEx+Aj Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7448"; a="37102260"
Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 24 May 2014 12:08:54 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,902,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="283507232"
Received: from plus.qualcomm.com ([10.52.255.8]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 May 2014 12:08:54 -0700
Received: from Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com (ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com [172.30.46.18]) by plus.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id s4OJ8pZp029286; Sat, 24 May 2014 12:08:52 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,902,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="738116782"
X-ojodefuego: yes
Received: from vpn-10-50-16-18.qualcomm.com (HELO [99.111.97.136]) ([10.50.16.18]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 24 May 2014 12:08:50 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240601cfa69e50f9d0@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <E45DDA85C9C092E7F6D7EF90@[192.168.1.102]>
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> <E45DDA85C9C092E7F6D7EF90@[192.168.1.102]>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 12:08:48 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yam/nK6nCbYelXQLKpXLqgTxaB4gTF0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 24 May 2014 12:17:55 -0700
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: Sat, 24 May 2014 19:08:58 -0000

Consider the work to add the clarifications as a down payment on the 
work of any eventual revision, or insurance that a revision will be 
done without forgetting this discussion now.  Or, if it's worth 
publishing the errata, it's worth noting that it isn't quite right.


At 7:51 PM -0400 5/23/14, John C Klensin wrote:

>  --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


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Sambo (SUM-bo; Swedish; noun): Two unmarried persons living together
in a matrimonial manner, as a couple.