RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roni,
At 05:49 18-05-10, Roni Even wrote:
>I was referring to section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026
>
>"The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
>    implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
>    specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
>    have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
>    implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
>    level only if those options or features are removed."

RFC 2821 was published as Proposed Standard.  RFC 5321 is the Draft 
Standard and it obsoletes RFC 2821.  The text you quoted from Section 
4.1.2 is about advancement to Draft Standard, i.e. from RFC 2821 to 
RFC 5321.  If it is the consensus of the IETF, the revision of RFC 
5321 will be the Internet Standard (Full Standard) and it will 
replace STD 10.  Section 4.1.3 is applicable.

And now, the obligatory quote:

   "Ed Jankiewicz pointed out that the Vatican named more saints
    this year [2009] than the IETF named Full Standards. The
    Vatican doesn't make saints, they recognize saints on their
    own merits."

Regards,
-sm