[yam] Next step for RFC 1652bis
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 16 January 2010 07:58 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 4FD5C3A67A1 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:58:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, 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 TFOFUmpPakQq for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8A63A6767 for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0G7wPHb029375; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:58:31 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1263628714; x=1263715114; bh=rr/LJv7L8SY9zYYVGnwKAShnmgM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=YZBFowRe5OTybFDNa/xTQ69WTHh53mSVM5rG1ahg7fWlt2apBak4mMrvvP5tOFvGS 1MinUgRI3qvu5GRNNU0x1LqWWP1DdKSKnfgO9bDSUrh/ruSMhpwvGB6spQU7Jl4/fl A0dtijIvp2rlF3qn71QIMn8VEuL89eDC/qhJb9JE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100115224006.080464b8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:58:04 -0800
To: yam@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: [yam] Next step for RFC 1652bis
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: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:58:45 -0000
The IESG stated that the proposed changes in draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-02 are suitable [1]. The next step for RFC 1652bis is to submit an I-D for Working Group consideration. If the I-D has the consensus of the YAM WG, it will go through the stages of the normal IETF approval process. Dave Crocker proposed that the original authors of RFC 1652 can be maintained as the changes are minor. I suggest that the authors, at least those that can be contacted, submit a revised I-D that includes the changes proposed in draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-02. Regards, S. Moonesamy YAM WG Secretary 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00283.html
- [yam] Next step for RFC 1652bis S Moonesamy