Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7001 (4201)

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 13:54:17 -0500

>> So what should we do about this?  I'm thinking that the gaps are large
>> enough that it'd be worth doing a new revision that includes the missing
>> stuff, replacing 7001.
...
>> PS: Yes. I'll help.
>
> Happy to spin up a full update once the holidays are over.  I had been
> planning to do that already, but the main issue I had was resolved with
> RFC7410.

So with respect to this errata report: do you want this marked as
"Held for Document Update"?

Barry

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Feb 2015 11:01:05 +0800

> "Held for Document Update"?

It's up to Murray.  I do think we need to revise it to include the missing 
descriptions of the properties, but since we are truly documenting what 
the running code does and shouldn't need to invent anything, it shouldn't 
be very hard.

Regards from the ICG session in Singapore,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 20:25:25 -0800

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:01 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> descriptions of the properties, but since we are truly documenting what the
> running code does and shouldn't need to invent anything, it shouldn't be
> very hard.
>

Apologies for dropping the ball on this.

I agree this is under-specified.  Would we prefer to do a document that
includes just the clarification that updates RFC7001, or a full
re-publication that replaces it?  I'm happy to do either.

-MSK

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Feb 2015 12:31:42 +0800

> re-publication that replaces it?  I'm happy to do either.

I'd lean toward a replacement.

Regards,

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:31:13 -0800

> I'd lean toward a replacement.

If nobody else feels strongly about just doing an update document, I'll
spin up a replacement in the next day or so.

-MSK

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Feb 2015 14:32:36 +0800

> spin up a replacement in the next day or so.

Just in case it's not clear to anyone, I hope we agree the goal here is to 
document the existing practice that somehow got left out of earlier 
versions, not to invent anything new.

Regards,

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:28:00 -0500

I'm happy to write some sort of "It's not as straightforward as that,"
note, and mark it HFDU.

Barry

On Sunday, February 8, 2015, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:01 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
>> It's up to Murray.  I do think we need to revise it to include the
>> missing descriptions of the properties, but since we are truly documenting
>> what the running code does and shouldn't need to invent anything, it
>> shouldn't be very hard.
>>
>