On 11/12/2022 16:58, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, December 11, 2022 11:36 -0500 Viktor Dukhovni
<ietf-dane@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 11:14:45AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
(1) The document appears to treat "valueless", "has no value",
"loses its validity", "is [not] wanted", and "expired" as
equivalent. The first two might be, the plain English
meanings of the others are not. Similarly, the final
sentence of Section 5 appears to say that "is wanted" and
"fraudulent" are opposite categories. Those differences in
meaning interact with what one might want to do with the
"expired" message, including deletion, warnings, etc.
The interpretation I would prefer see is "no longer timely or
actionable". It is too late to act on the content of an
expired message (sale over, poll closed, lunch date missed,
...)
That does not mean that the message is unwanted, or valueless.
For example, if it was an invitation, one might write to the
host or sender and apologise for missing the event. One might
also want to keep it for one's records.
While I like your proposed interpretation and language, the more
important point for me is that there either be (i) one
definition that is clear or (ii) an explanation of the various
definitions and how they relate to each other. What disturbs me
most is the idea of treating all of those terms as if they were
interchangeable. And, yes, none of them are as precise are your
description above.
Yes, very much so. The comment I made earlier went a bit further, that
valueless, invalid and such like are excessive - they are a value
judgement that depends on the eye of the beholder and should not be part
of a technical specification.
Tom Petch
john
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
