Re: [yam] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 17 May 2010 19:54 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 A3EEE3A6358; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.340, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 MMnsz-B40aA7; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA333A69D3; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (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; d=elandsys.com; 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: <6.2.5.6.2.20100517122941.08eb6b98@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:53:18 -0700
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4bf19449.1716e30a.7d47.ffff993a@mx.google.com>
References: <4bf19449.1716e30a.7d47.ffff993a@mx.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05
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: 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. Regards, S. Moonesamy YAM WG Secretary