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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

> If the proposal being promoted by Russ is chosen, then there's nothing 
> for this wg to do: everything that is a candidate for the wg should 
> automatically already be at the final level. No?

I would hope that the YAM working group exists to improve the e-mail 
related RFCs. I'm not sure about these specific RFCs, but in general, I 
at least see often small issues here and there, there's usually some 
filed errata, and we've learned over the years to understand some issues 
better. While all of these issues are small (as evidenced by global 
deployment of this technology), I still think they are worthwhile to 
handle. In short, while the edits will probably be small, I think it is 
our duty at the IETF to maintain our specifications.

For instance, I looked at draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation and 
all the suggested changes make sense to me (irrespective of what labels 
we might be using to name the resulting RFCs).

Just my view point on this, of course.

Jari