spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: RFC 4408 erratas

2006-07-31 03:31:45
wayne wrote:

: 1) On page 1, in the IESG notes, "aParticipants" should be
:    "Participants".

Only really important RFCs have errata... :-)

: The first error, Meng and I couldn't have even known about
: because we were never given the chance to review the IESG
: note for errors.

It should be published on the tracker.  Or in the reply to the
appeal.  Or both.  But I guess the authors aren't supposed to
review IESG notes, the shepherd did this, missed an "a", no big
deal.  He fixed a more serious detail in the revised IESG note.

  {proposal to quote "mechanism"]
key              = "client-ip" / "envelope-from" / "helo" /
                   "problem" / "receiver" / "identity" /
                    mechanism / "x-" name / name
[...]

It was my understanding that the 'mechanism' was in reference to the
<mechanism> ABNF term and that this would result in something like:

   ip4:192.0.2.1

I confess that I'm really not sure though.

It's okay as is, without quotes.

  [missing "v"]
macro-letter     = "s" / "l" / "o" / "d" / "i" / "p" / "h" /
                   "c" / "r" / "t"
[...]
This modification must be applied to the Collected ABNF
in Appendix A, on page 43, as well.

This appears to be an error to me.  good catch.

Indeed.  A real erratum, the others were typos.

 [single vs. double quotes]
Again, I guess I agree, but I don't know if it is a big deal.

No big deal, "x" is correct in the ABNF, and 'x' elsewhere is
a matter of taste.  I'd stick to "x", but that's no erratum.

author name of the Ref. [RMX]: "Danish" should be "Danisch".
  [...]
*blush*

Me too... :-(   Also a real erratum, not only a typo.

the IETF promised to have all of the input documents
published as experimental RFCs.  That doesn't look like it
will ever happen though.

"The IETF" couldn't promise such things, at best some WG Chair
or AD uttered incoherent stuff about taking all input documents
as equal input.  After the secret deal to squeeze out anything
but SID in some backchamber, or whatever really happened in
this forsaken WG.

"The IETF" works by rough consensus, and I doubt that a zoo of
similar experiments with mail could get this.

We clearly need to have Hadmut's name corrected, I'm not sure
about the expired thing though.

Expired I-Ds are still cited as "work in progress".  Maybe if
the author explicitly doesn't wish this it's different.  For
USEFOR we'll have son-of-1036 as "work in progress", published
1994.  Ask you know who... ;-)

I wish we could have incorporated many of the changes much
earlier.

Yes.  Start with 4408bis ?  <g>


-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>