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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
>>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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo