Re: Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

"Valdis Klētnieks" <[email protected]> Sun, 06 Jun 2021 15:43:19 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.smtp
Message-ID	<13303.1623008599@turing-police>

On Sun, 06 Jun 2021 18:56:58 +0200, Alessandro Vesely said:
> On Sat 05/Jun/2021 20:14:28 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> > (2) At the risk of being even more pragmatic about your "very
> > pragmatic" proposal, I know of no way to make an authoritative
> > change in a standards track RFC -- whether one word or a few
> > paragraphs -- without generating an I-D, having it discussed in
> > the community, going through IETF Last Call, and publishing a
> > new RFC.
>
>
> How about an erratum?

This smells more like a BCP.  But I'm not sure one thing like that qualifies for
a BCP by itself, and I'm not seeing the energy needed for a wider-reaching BCP.

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832 B)