IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] Referencing 1652bis and update to RFC 5321/5322

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 27 June 2010 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 95C783A6822 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 1uU1LbvIOoy1 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AC13A63C9 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.167.33.122] ([217.41.233.145]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5RAvERa003519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:57:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4C272E8A.8000505@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:57:14 +0100
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20100626145920.0b610618@elandnews.com> <6785AF47EC3ACD933037ABE5@PST.JCK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20100626173821.0b374a90@resistor.net> <4C2725DA.6000507@isode.com> <4C272C75.8060407@dcrocker.net> <4C272D60.9000703@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C272D60.9000703@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] Referencing 1652bis and update to RFC 5321/5322
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:57:13 -0000

On 6/27/2010 11:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> are people still going
>>> to be interested in updating various email specs if 3 muturity levels
>>> are replaced with 1 or 2?
...
>> If the proposal being promoted by Russ is chosen, then there's nothing
>> for this wg to do: everything that is a candidate for the wg should
>> automatically already be at the final level. No?
...
> This is not the question I've asked ;-). "Are people interested in
> updating documents" and "are people interested in moving from Draft to
> Full" are not quite the same.


Well...

Strictly speaking, the task of this working group, as I understand it, is to 
move docs from Draft to Full.  The editing is in the service of that goal rather 
than being a goal of its own.

So in practical terms, I didn't/don't see the two different wordings as having 
different import for the wg...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email