IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 14 August 2009 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141173A6A5A for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, 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 ReLDytfC9KN3 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD953A67DD for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id n7E6Mv6k027077 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1250230986; x=1250317386; bh=JVSjTUAQWQw/tCgiREqRHr2cSH3ctPOb5vt3LnvLvxg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=VZPm1YQRGKsdYzZRi0QmJbGgQIzVU/2XD6R19iwc5XCtVYiHXRgm2+AVowPF6kDL+ XwO7rz7XIazlId3XagQBT6ULFLpKbPXLLxVJJRuLvl+/DBY25B0GaDnVCfE5QdWBxs lW6H2Y4jcFhma3QQImshoP99Qt5tGnvpIE2nFZ7Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=vAmmb22SrGHiovqWZI2HPT7dOI+c0Is+mh3Z7izvssyLIE4lp8ODG+jzQUQlWbbVc twlggldepnrBTIziiXUcvcaMzcDnfjJtbxBCINwWJcno2o+miHyn9AZWj6uV30HqJNH FHozpOyaCxEvwGlOaadvdOgWPmVxh7vdo3j2UYM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090813224322.03fb7ca0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:22:06 -0700
To: yam@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A84BD5C.9010000@att.com>
References: <4A848309.8020107@dcrocker.net> <4A848FD4.6080601@att.com> <4A84B8DF.4020107@dcrocker.net> <4A84BD5C.9010000@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:23:42 -0000

At 18:26 13-08-2009, Tony Hansen wrote:
>This seems worth providing as supporting evidence for the 
>"Confidence" test. Providing such statements should possibly be part 
>of the submission process for the final RFC, but doesn't need to be 
>there for the pre-evaluation step.

The confidence is implied as the WG is recommending advancing the 
document(s).  I'm fine with having a formal statement either at this 
stage or as part of final submission.  In my opinion, it is better to 
skip the supporting evidence bit, i.e. the grounds for the
generally held belief.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email