Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

When I was on the IESG, we had been talking with Heather and Sandy about what to do about fixing up the whole errata system. Not sure where that is now. It wasn't anyone's top priority at the time. b On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:40 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/7/2017 5:52

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

On 2/7/2017 5:52 PM, Roland Turner wrote: As a passing engineer who doesn't spend that much time spelunking IETF processes, a question that appears to be begged here is why the distinction matters. This is not immediately clear from any of the Status and Type of RFC Errata page

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

Roland, your question is quite appropriate, and thanks for raising it. At one level, I don't think it matters that much, so we're sort of arguing minutiae. But that's something Dave (and John) and I are often wont to do, so... My view is that the errata report type is there to alert viewers to

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

On 02/08/2017 02:52 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: I think there's a difference between an example that includes "Reply-To" when it should have included "Subject" (that'd be a technical error) and an example that includes "Sujbect" when it should have included "Subject" (that'd be an editorial

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

On 2/7/2017 10:52 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: I suspect that "says something technically wrong" is meant to constrain things to the specification content, but that's not what the RFC-Editor definition says, nor is it clear to me that it should be that constrained. I agree. I think it mostly

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

> I suspect that "says something technically wrong" is meant to constrain > things to the specification content, but that's not what the RFC-Editor > definition says, nor is it clear to me that it should be that constrained. I agree. I think it mostly should, but that there should be judgment

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

On 2/7/2017 10:25 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Assuming they do, this errata report should be marked "Verified", but the type should be changed to "Editorial", not "Technical". Hmmn. It's really both, a technical error caused by an editorial change. No: a Technical erratum is one where the spec

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

>>Murray, Tony, or someone else: Can you independently check that these >>examples need the extra space in order to be verified correctly? > > Murray did that for us a decade ago -- it's one of the test cases that > opendkim uses. Yes, but the point is: did Murray (or anyone) extract the text

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

Murray, Tony, or someone else: Can you independently check that these examples need the extra space in order to be verified correctly? Assuming they do, this errata report should be marked "Verified", but the type should be changed to "Editorial", not "Technical". Barry On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at

Re: [ietf-dkim] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

On 07/02/17 15:33, Dave Crocker wrote: > G'day. > > Looking for a community determination, here: The DKIM spec's examples > in A.2 and A.3 do not explicitly claim to be related to each other. > However they do contain the same message, so that assuming a > relationship seems pretty reasonable.

[ietf-dkim] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

G'day. Looking for a community determination, here: The DKIM spec's examples in A.2 and A.3 do not explicitly claim to be related to each other. However they do contain the same message, so that assuming a relationship seems pretty reasonable. As such, calling the point raised in this