IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 14 August 2009 18:52 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 7910628C1C3 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.954, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
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 Iyxuv2gL5QV3 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4673A6D59 for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ppp-68-120-198-98.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.120.198.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7EIq9ow011626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:52:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4A85B24C.30205@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:51:56 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: yam@ietf.org
References: <4A848309.8020107@dcrocker.net> <4A848FD4.6080601@att.com> <4A84B8DF.4020107@dcrocker.net> <4A84BD5C.9010000@att.com> <4A8577E2.3020908@dcrocker.net> <4A85A390.6050104@att.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090814111028.0320b218@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090814111028.0320b218@resistor.net>
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]); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:52:12 -0000

SM wrote:
> Shouldn't that be in Section 2 under "Proposed changes" as it is part of 
> the preliminary evaluation report?

yeah, that probably makes more sense.


> As the I-D will not only be processed by the IESG, a IANA Considerations 
> section is not a requirement.

right.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email