Re: [yam] Rough notes for IETF76 YAM WG Session

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

Ned and all,
Ned Freed wrote:
> I will again repeat that 5321bis moving from draft to full is not a time 
> for lots of changes of the sort that you seem to be after. Indeed, there is
> substantive risk with the present course continues 5321 will become 
> ineligible for processing under the rules for this WG.

I think the community expects a Full Standard that will provide 
consistent and unambiguous reference for the years to come. We are 
all committed to fulfill that expectation. I try and only consider 
changes that improve the clarity of the spec, without altering the 
protocol unless they are already deployed by commonly used 
implementations. That sort of changes are apparently allowed in the 
charter, so where does the risk of ineligibility originate from?

For example, I recently complained about apparently prohibited 
header changes that seem to formally relegate mailing lists with an 
added header signature, and newsletters with personalized 5322.To, 
out of SMTP scope. Either I got it wrong or that snippet needs a 
fix. Moving from draft to full is the last chance for fixing it, in 
case. Therefore, I felt a compelling obligation to bring it to the 
WG's attention. Should I have put that down?

I do my best to be as flexible and conciliatory as possible, 
reasoning that if my opinion differs from that of the WG, it is 
probably because I'm missing some point. Trying to understand that 
point may occasionally make me appear insistent. I apologize for 
that, but please don't mistake that behavior for insolence or denial 
of consensus.