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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

> In pragmatic terms, as odd as it might seem, that is almost explicitly 
> NOT what
> the working is chartered to do.
>
> "Full" standard is really about community acceptance, rather than 
> being about improving the specifications.  For YAM, the focus in 
> writing the charter was specifically NOT to make any interesting 
> changes.  Anything that seems to call for interesting changes is 
> required to /disqualify/ the specification from further consideration...

My view of the standards ladder advancement in IETF is that it was 
always a mixture of recognizing community acceptance and deployment 
success, removing crud (unimplemented features), and yes, even some 
document improvement.

In any case, if you believe that the work was useful when the "Full" 
label was available, I presume that was because the label would 
communicate to the world that the document is very stable, widely 
deployed, and so on. Would the work be useful if there is just another 
label "Internet Standard" but you explained the status of the work in 
words in the beginning of the document?

Jari