Re: [yam] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05

S Moonesamy <> Mon, 17 May 2010 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3EEE3A6358; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.340, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MMnsz-B40aA7; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA333A69D3; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4HJsL4I005724; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:27 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1274126069; bh=LFNM0r4B4OjVgFtvEbCIc5I3P5s=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=vLEQeAlejlXrX6D2WTAWXKWxa5Eae0BoOpLSQO/McsfhONtJwFkh6guARHLOMKbSW Fdji2idRDkuHBBbVRg12BfDbnMT3wko5tsSlIpQt6wb64okMogmgbWWGRT0HJqLt3j U/AjxCsrQ5mE07HmGl63quT3ioqlNQ5fbIsYMiiI=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:53:18 -0700
To: Roni Even <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: General Area Review Team <>,
Subject: Re: [yam] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 19:54:44 -0000

Hi Roni,

Thank you for the review.

At 12:07 17-05-10, Roni Even wrote:
>Summary: This draft is not meant to be published.

All I-Ds from the YAM WG with a "pre-evaluation" tag are not meant 
for publication as a RFC.  It would be helpful to the YAM WG if 
future Gen-ART reviews also consider the Draft Standard that is being 
evaluated as part of the review.

>In general it looks good, what I did not see is a summary of an 
>analysis that evaluate if all commands and tags are used in 
>interoperable products

As an implementation report was previously filed for RFC 2821, there 
is no need for a summary of an analysis of the interoperability of 
the commands and tags.

S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary