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
<[email protected]> 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.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
