From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 1 13:37:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918893A6E8C; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:37:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2AF3A6CD6 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:33:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4YA+Q9myN5wB for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3660F28CBA2 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K2qt7-0005rX-6W for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:58:33 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e24.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.36]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:58:33 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e24.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:58:33 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 18:59:52 +0200 Organization: Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <20080524043001.5CC6E3A6827@core3.amsl.com> <54e226890805311100o431befbek57f64e76ba19f6db@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e24.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] A. Local-part,et al. X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Bill Fenner wrote: > There's an open question about what to do about old, bad data in > the IETF database - for example, if you ask the IETF database who > steve-asp@wordtothewise.com is, it says his name is "Author Domain". LOL, that's odd. If this oddity is limited to "Author Domain" just kill all affected records in the "IETF database" (I've no clue what that is, but I guess there should be a privacy statement somewhere). > This new version should be deployed in June. Sounds good, thanks. Is your tool also responsible for the content of the announcements ? If that's the case I'd really love to get a link to the rfcmarkup-HTML version of new drafts in announcements, it would allow me to get to a diff with two clicks. The short delay until a rfcmarkup version is available is no problem from my POV. Frank _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 17 01:58:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48F93A6979; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:58:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BF53A6996 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:58:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.942 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.343, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kwTSKhLgFhoT for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 601583A692F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2008 08:59:15 -0000 Received: from p508FD482.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.22]) [80.143.212.130] by mail.gmx.net (mp035) with SMTP; 17 Jun 2008 10:59:15 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19tE/p9Xihthx6/BgmmqYPX5yktMpPkJRWowRj9X1 fG7HWwqiBhFb3a Message-ID: <48577CDE.30301@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:59:10 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: [Tools-discuss] ID Submission Tool: I-D Submitter Authentication X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi, while submitting drafts this morning, it occurred to me that the current approach of authenticating the draft submission based on an HTTP GET request violates the GET safeness principle. Any chance that this could be changed in the future to require a subsequent POST (via HTML form)? BR, Julian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 17 02:36:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48F73A6991; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:36:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048FE3A6991 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sfrRkcwDOZvC for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B112D3A682D for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55494 helo=chardonnay.local) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K8Xd3-00024F-Ur; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:37:31 +0200 Message-ID: <485785D9.9030307@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:37:29 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <48577CDE.30301@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <48577CDE.30301@gmx.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: julian.reschke@gmx.de, tools-discuss@ietf.org, fenner@fenron.com, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on merlot.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: Bill Fenner , tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] ID Submission Tool: I-D Submitter Authentication X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi Julian, On 2008-06-17 10:59 Julian Reschke said the following: > Hi, > > while submitting drafts this morning, it occurred to me that the current > approach of authenticating the draft submission based on an HTTP GET > request violates the GET safeness principle. I assume you mean that a GET on an URL should never change the state of the resource the URL represents? If so, that makes sense to me, and resolving another issue raised for the submission tool would also resolve this: It has been requested that the confirmation URL shows a web page with the relevant information for the draft, letting you see and review it before hitting a confirmation button. Hmm. I thought that was in the issue tracker, but can't see it. I'll have to add it (to http://www3.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/report/9) I guess. > Any chance that this could be changed in the future to require a > subsequent POST (via HTML form)? I think so. Bill Fenner is currently master of the submission tool rewrite, so if this happens in the next release is up to him. Otherwise we should be able to fix it in a follow-up minor release. Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 17 02:49:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762C83A6A80; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:49:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC043A6A80 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:49:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.306 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.707, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYaNwFkGy-gt for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 171AF3A6A53 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2008 09:49:41 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.106]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 17 Jun 2008 11:49:41 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+tKaIe2LutVUnYcvQduyAIHUKmwCTd/z5WQMLUOz bUciMa4AvU/SxH Message-ID: <485788AE.7040905@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:49:34 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz References: <48577CDE.30301@gmx.de> <485785D9.9030307@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <485785D9.9030307@levkowetz.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Bill Fenner , tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] ID Submission Tool: I-D Submitter Authentication X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi Julian, > > On 2008-06-17 10:59 Julian Reschke said the following: >> Hi, >> >> while submitting drafts this morning, it occurred to me that the >> current approach of authenticating the draft submission based on an >> HTTP GET request violates the GET safeness principle. > > I assume you mean that a GET on an URL should never change the state of the > resource the URL represents? > ... Exactly. > If so, that makes sense to me, and resolving another issue raised for > the submission tool would also resolve this: It has been requested that > the confirmation URL shows a web page with the relevant information for > the draft, letting you see and review it before hitting a confirmation > button. > > Hmm. I thought that was in the issue tracker, but can't see it. I'll > have to add it (to http://www3.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/report/9) I > guess. Thanks a lot. > ... BR, Julian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:41:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCDD3A6953; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:41:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A383A6953 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Mc6q5p9Dipw for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474F43A693A for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K9Sp4-0006Ex-Vk for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:41:43 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e32.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.50]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:41:42 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e32.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:41:42 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:43:23 +0200 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e32.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Subject: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi, the errata are not more in sync with the reported errata, is that as it should be ? Examples: , no link to http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3092 , no link to http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3406 Frank _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:24:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB3F3A688C; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530603A688C for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:24:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKEzxT3X1p-f for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7787B3A683E for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44905 helo=chardonnay.local) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9o6J-0004Tp-TK; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:24:56 +0200 Message-ID: <485C2028.3060701@levkowetz.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:24:56 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on merlot.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi Frank, On 2008-06-20 00:43 Frank Ellermann said the following: > Hi, the errata are not more in sync with the > reported errata, is that as it should be ? No, it's not. Investigating. Thanks for the alert! Henrik _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 20 20:47:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916BF3A68BF; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:47:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF143A68ED for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:47:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.187 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.588, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hqcekPqvmZvQ for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F6D3A68BF for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K9u4P-0003Sq-0J for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:47:21 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e16.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.22]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:47:20 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e16.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:47:20 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:48:58 +0200 Organization: Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <485C2028.3060701@levkowetz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e16.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Investigating. Thanks. On the rfc-interest list I've reported another nit: In that case an erratum was updated / replaced by another erratum three months ago, but the original reporter (me) got no info about it. This affects one PS which can be still fixed in AUTH48 (in theory time critical), RFC 4408 with its own outsourced errata, work on IDNAbis, and the 2606bis draft (fixed version posted minutes ago). IOW it would be nice if folks can track any changes of errata for published RFC. On the rfc-interest list I mentioned "bugzilla", but actually that is overkill, and besides I'd consider it as excessively hostile to users. Another idea would be an atom feed for RFCs tracking the errata, and maybe later also all drafts referencing it. Is that idea fairly trivial to implement on this side ? Frank _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun 21 01:47:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BDD3A684E; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:47:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDCE3A67EB for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:47:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.522, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JnggRRbJELsA for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604483A67E7 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K9yku-0004fO-Am for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:47:32 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e16.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.22]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:47:32 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e16.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:47:32 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:49:12 +0200 Organization: Lines: 16 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e16.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Subject: [Tools-discuss] dailydose feed X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi, is anybody else using the dailydose feed ? I'd prefer ?singlecolumn style URIs, compare vs. Of course a matter of taste, but when I want the overdose I don't want the tools navbar. Generally I like a decent link to a separate page with all relevant links better than a "navbar" wasting real estate in the browser window and bandwidth, but that is obviously a minority position, the whole WWW replaced those pre-historic navframes by navbars. :-( Frank _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 23 07:53:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4CE3A68EB; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:53:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22F63A68DB for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.218 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d--ngWbisEjI for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63983A68EB for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B33F020FE6; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:52:57 +0200 (CEST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ae198bb000004ec0-74-485fb8c9ade0 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 987AC20F94; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:52:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.174]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:53:22 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([147.214.183.142]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:53:22 +0200 Message-ID: <485FB8C8.1070305@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:52:56 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2008 14:53:22.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2213730:01C8D540] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Are you certain that it really should list these non confirmed ones? I = actually think not. I do hope we (IESG) will be able to soon get on = approving the erratas in a meaningful way. Cheers Magnus Frank Ellermann skrev: > Hi, the errata are not more in sync with the = > reported errata, is that as it should be ? > = > Examples: > , no link to > http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D3092 > = > , no link to > http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D3406 > = > Frank > = > _______________________________________________ > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > = -- = Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 F=E4r=F6gatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 23 11:57:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C3F3A69F5; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9D43A69A5 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.069 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9pCrS1SsAb8R for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB443A69E1 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KArDy-0001A1-Me for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:57:10 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88e3b.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.59]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:57:10 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e3b.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:57:10 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:58:48 +0200 Organization: Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <485FB8C8.1070305@ericsson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e3b.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Are you certain that it really should list these non confirmed ones? Absolutely. It was excessively annoying when a simple missing comma in RFC 2045 reported by the author needed more than two years to show up as reported. It is still unverified, after three years and four months. For technical errata about say the RFC 2069, 2938, or 4122 examples it is very important to have them published as soon as possible for implementors - they will be able to judge if an unverified erratum misses the point. They might even update it, a rather interesting case is certainly Errata ID 1081 updated by 1335. It already made it into a 2606bis draft, and I'm tempted to move it to the normative references - replacing RFC 1123, as the only reason that this RFC is mentioned at all is to get an indirect pointer to this erratum. Other interesting cases are the outsourced RFC 2616 and 4408 errata, and I have a good idea how long (measured in months if not years) it can take to verify non-trivial errata. Or to get consensus for non-obvious fixes when different developers interpreted an obscure corner case in RFC 4408 differently. But at least they agreed that something needed fixing - having that on public record was already a Good Thing. > I do hope we (IESG) will be able to soon get on approving the > erratas in a meaningful way. With the given backlog I don't expect any results before 2010. And I don't see how you can guarantee a decent turnaround time in 2010, like say 100 days. It is just wrong when the RFC 2069 erratum reported isn't shown by the Tools server anymore, it was reported three years and four months ago. Two years it was hidden in a 1 MB pending errata mbox, after that it finally showed up. Hiding it *again* in an IESG list archive for years would be very bad. The IETF Tools server is supposed to mirror the important meta data for RFCs, if it doesn't do this it is worthless for my purposes of setting links, I'd be forced to use [[purlnet:rfc/2069|RFC 2069]] or similar. Maybe invent a "dispute" procedure to remove controversial errata from the picture temporarily - admittedly the errata report system needs a better protection than "e-mail field can't be empty". Frank _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 02:26:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE013A68D0; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A21F3A68D0 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.693, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ghOzQLDDl763 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804E43A6889 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 0A91520C6B; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:28 +0200 (CEST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ab896bb00000193b-5e-4860bdc308b7 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E29FF20C8A; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:54 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([147.214.183.142]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4860BDC3.4090809@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:27 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann References: <485FB8C8.1070305@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2008 09:26:53.0981 (UTC) FILETIME=[70AA9CD0:01C8D5DC] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Frank Ellermann skrev: > Magnus Westerlund wrote: > = >> Are you certain that it really should list these non confirmed ones? > = > Absolutely. It was excessively annoying when a simple missing comma > in RFC 2045 reported by the author needed more than two years to show > up as reported. It is still unverified, after three years and four > months. = As you may be aware IESG has been working on a statement on how Errata = for IETF document stream is going to be handled. If not the proposal = that has been announced for comments where this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg04742.html We are still editing on this but it should be ready pretty soon for = announcement. Part of this is that we will not classify most editorial as being worth = being seen. > = > For technical errata about say the RFC 2069, 2938, or 4122 examples > it is very important to have them published as soon as possible for > implementors - they will be able to judge if an unverified erratum > misses the point. They might even update it, a rather interesting > case is certainly Errata ID 1081 updated by 1335. It already made > it into a 2606bis draft, and I'm tempted to move it to the normative > references - replacing RFC 1123, as the only reason that this RFC > is mentioned at all is to get an indirect pointer to this erratum. What about the ones that are wrong? We have seen quite a few of these = erratas filed also. Some quite subtle. > = > Other interesting cases are the outsourced RFC 2616 and 4408 errata, > and I have a good idea how long (measured in months if not years) > it can take to verify non-trivial errata. Or to get consensus for > non-obvious fixes when different developers interpreted an obscure > corner case in RFC 4408 differently. But at least they agreed that > something needed fixing - having that on public record was already > a Good Thing. = Yes, and in many cases approving an errata is not the way to fix the = issue because it actually requires a consensus decision. Thus a updated = specification is the appropriate way of moving forward. > = >> I do hope we (IESG) will be able to soon get on approving the = >> erratas in a meaningful way. > = > With the given backlog I don't expect any results before 2010. And > I don't see how you can guarantee a decent turnaround time in 2010, > like say 100 days. We never can guarantee anything but I think once we have the tool = support in place we can deliver them in reasonable time. But, I have = little hope that we will be able to do much until we have a reasonable = tool to work with. The current system that requires us to use cut and = past into emails are not working. It is also important that ADs can = delegate this properly. > = > It is just wrong when the RFC 2069 erratum reported isn't shown by > the Tools server anymore, it was reported three years and four = > months ago. Two years it was hidden in a 1 MB pending errata mbox, > after that it finally showed up. Hiding it *again* in an IESG list > archive for years would be very bad. For clarity, errata processing will not go to the IESG list. > = > The IETF Tools server is supposed to mirror the important meta data > for RFCs, if it doesn't do this it is worthless for my purposes of > setting links, I'd be forced to use [[purlnet:rfc/2069|RFC 2069]] > or similar. I agree that the tools servers should contain the important data. = However, if non processed erratas are important or not is unknown. That = is the core of the problem from my perspective. Until some human has = looked at it to confirm it or dispute it we don't know what importance = that data has. > = > Maybe invent a "dispute" procedure to remove controversial errata = > from the picture temporarily - admittedly the errata report system > needs a better protection than "e-mail field can't be empty". > = Well, we have this problem with Erratas that they are trying to change = something that is supposed to be immutable. That doesn't make this = process easy. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 F=E4r=F6gatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 14:38:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CDB3A6800; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:38:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91A23A6897 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:38:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.684, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h0t095rxYHPN for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15593A67FD for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so893064ywj.49 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:38:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cj7WsS+vHvaYj8+xoMPJOb1roKJzaC+6eZVrLNoHznQ=; b=SUlEdtj5LVwwIu6Hyz26nVftEc/0KVv8TpeBiCj+ZN0haCZ0PbjGeCxlsVxoa2Zz1b j66yC3SmT6blNTH7RqUaP+Qg7f6rq1kjosA09Js90DS5DZF3G8FLB+zmYx/9wxRq+Q22 kOkVzkuiz0ujXfYWyXYaDP5+Dx4U1dLPmjUto= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=sTOltt4nczipYkUr97ZqvqIycPC366FKofR3jq6hdNWe+638nUKH+V9DEHhknMcj/c O2jpCUzzODgDEmF7CpLvO1FedSn6EjzIv4ca5ALmyWwGr3Am6HQ9Rc9iMWklE1d/XDSx dyKxzvBbYydj/DQp4sD7mQ++VpKxBlHJeZ8Og= Received: by 10.141.170.9 with SMTP id x9mr15489983rvo.90.1214343505330; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b8sm15281708rvf.9.2008.06.24.14.38.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4861694E.4010008@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:38:22 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Magnus Westerlund References: <485FB8C8.1070305@ericsson.com> <4860BDC3.4090809@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4860BDC3.4090809@ericsson.com> Cc: Frank Ellermann , tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On 2008-06-24 21:26, Magnus Westerlund wrote: ... > Part of this is that we will not classify most editorial as being worth > being seen. Please don't forget that sometimes a single misplaced comma can change the technical meaning. I'm not sure that completely hiding editorial and typographical errata is wise. Brian _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss From tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 19:27:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-tools-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1A83A69A7; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:27:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E1B3A69A7 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:27:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EBCrfm0QJnaC for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8C73A6830 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KBKjb-0005iP-9J for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:27:47 +0000 Received: from hmbg-d9b88771.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.135.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:27:47 +0000 Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88771.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:27:47 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: tools-discuss@ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:29:22 +0200 Organization: Lines: 69 Message-ID: References: <485FB8C8.1070305@ericsson.com> <4860BDC3.4090809@ericsson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88771.pool.mediaways.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Errata X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Magnus Westerlund wrong: > Part of this is that we will not classify most editorial as being > worth being seen. As noted by Brian, don't take the classification of a reported erratum as "editorial" for "waste of our time". The *critical* RFC 1123 errata are "editorial" in nature, as they are about a presumably informative note in RFC 1123. And as long as no IDN TLDs exist they also have no immediate consequences whatsoever. But as long as they are not approved any future IDN TLD would violate STD 3, that might come as a surprise to say lawyers ;-) > What about the ones that are wrong? Reject. > We have seen quite a few of these erratas filed also. Some > quite subtle. That is why there is an "unverified" state. IMO readers are supposed to judge for themselves if an "unverified" erratum makes sense. Clearly there should be ways to reject obvious nonsense, e.g., on request by anybody finding it. > in many cases approving an errata is not the way to fix the > issue because it actually requires a consensus decision. > Thus a updated specification is the appropriate way of > moving forward. Apparently your "archived" state covers this situation. But I'm not sure why you split "verified" in "archived" and "approved" at all. What to do with a "verified" erratum is a completely different question. For an old RFC it might be the last word. For an active RFC it might block promotion on standards track without first fixing the erratum. For an implementor it might help, hopefully. For the RFC-editor it will help them to improve their editorial work. > For clarity, errata processing will not go to the IESG list. With the errata report system as it was some days ago a copy was sent to the IESG list, that was what I meant. Of course you'd need some way to forward it to areas / WGs (where a WG still exists, e.g., the RFC 4646 erratum. I could produce a consenting LTRU co-Chair, but that would be cheating. The system has to work for folks not knowing what "IETF" means.) > However, if non processed erratas are important or not is > unknown. That is the core of the problem from my perspective. > Until some human has looked at it to confirm it or dispute > it we don't know what importance that data has. Yes, but hiding reported errata isn't a plausible plan to get a human to look at it. Besides not only ADs are humans... :-) >> the errata report system needs a better protection than >> "e-mail field can't be empty". > Well, we have this problem with Erratas that they are trying > to change something that is supposed to be immutable. That > doesn't make this process easy. ACK. Did somebody already try to pull this stunt, apart from the known RFC 1123 TLD case ? Frank _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss