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

2017-02-14 Thread Stephen Farrell
On 14/02/17 01:32, Barry Leiba wrote: > Verified as Editorial is my preference. Done. Cheers, S. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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

2017-02-13 Thread Dave Crocker
On 2/13/2017 5:32 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: Verified as Editorial is my preference. Editorial because I don't ... If you decide to leave it as Technical, then we should definitely go Since I raised some fuss about this choice, let me be clear that I meant the fuss only in academic terms. I

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

2017-02-13 Thread Barry Leiba
OK, so, Stephen: This should definitely be closed out in some sort of accepted state. Verified as Editorial is my preference. Editorial because I don't think it's a technical issue and it won't cause technical difficulties in implementation. Verified (not HFDU) because I think implementors

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

2017-02-10 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >>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

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

2017-02-08 Thread Stephen Farrell
On 08/02/17 03:04, Barry Leiba wrote: > 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. The RFC editor folks were too busy with the RFC

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

2017-02-07 Thread Barry Leiba
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)

2017-02-07 Thread Dave Crocker
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)

2017-02-07 Thread Barry Leiba
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)

2017-02-07 Thread Roland Turner
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)

2017-02-07 Thread Dave Crocker
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)

2017-02-07 Thread Barry Leiba
> 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)

2017-02-07 Thread Dave Crocker
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)

2017-02-07 Thread Barry Leiba
>>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)

2017-02-07 Thread Barry Leiba
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