[yam] IESG feedback on draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 14 January 2010 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB873A67F4; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:04:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DihCSmyNZR43; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628883A69A7; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:04:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0EK42Eq015336; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:04:08 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1263499451; x=1263585851; bh=YnugS9DPl3AzcHjKTPWRadvJwsg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=G2cT9RTjtfUhbf3EDNUAKn+aLCK3ywGB5asqRjvvL9QJDzgAUKs9DJQ7CttmGk63E TMrhRubadDiR07PWFa/v6U65CBruRfiXB1mvXayykcsJH1wwP8RSZs1kri9Uk4Yld2 mX7uyh6/DZX/LTqEnQItaTi8JQUig7JRriAN5qEw=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:03:39 -0800
To: iesg@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@sun.com>, yam@ietf.org, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: [yam] IESG feedback on 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: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:04:28 -0000

Dear IESG,

draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation was submitted for IESG 
Evaluation on September 12, 2009.  The issues raised by the IESG were 
referred to the YAM WG on October 31, 2009 ( 
).  Ned Freed posted some comments ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00149.html ) on 
November 2, 2009 about RFC 1652 and they have been addressed in 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-02 ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00267.html ).

I believe that RFC 1652 has been thoroughly reviewed for advancement 
from Draft to Full Standard by the YAM WG.  The results have been 
communicated to the IESG in 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-02.  The draft was on the 
agenda of the IESG for the January 14, 2010 telechat.  The YAM WG 
requests feedback from the IESG, in particular:

    (i)   Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a
          move from Draft to Full Standard?

    (ii)  Does the IESG believe any other proposed changes are necessary to
          satisfy IESG requirements to advance to Full Standard?

    (iii) Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a
          Full Standard?

S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary