IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 14 August 2009 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 B77853A6ACF for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, 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 AJ6LLhj8bu2l for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434BC28C1B1 for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id n7EINhso001654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1250274238; x=1250360638; bh=wt+yq7WtLTQRx8F3iIVYHf7y6mHcOZlQ03qIRUiHdOQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=foc68Y/CSCc47wzaX8hbmd84MeS8B5tI4vVtxxN0NnOY1rIbUhW0aflzzn+hNq/ku 8FnyCguD1U0FFDYru20q6+h8fNROSZm6PutM6jf+3UQc5I/uJ7g8w0NM13kY/BwgX+ GxLnDMGop6EXaI/MnjVh4JoOUxvJ1NToY17NKjCY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=r9Vj566mq39/0qeaYpqQ9paPQuLh5ANiaJVlJPEYR3rQ5RRYAkjSzz0v/9tdG4iRv DS5pPjexw4ncZJHlOYRkK02TDnlpgr1Hb6EC/uBmK1tzaP68kr8+FfpAouNMomO0tJO DKNVNJRgi3zqL3kj7c1sjeQsTvl6gLWYufvXfV8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090814111028.0320b218@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:23:30 -0700
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A85A390.6050104@att.com>
References: <4A848309.8020107@dcrocker.net> <4A848FD4.6080601@att.com> <4A84B8DF.4020107@dcrocker.net> <4A84BD5C.9010000@att.com> <4A8577E2.3020908@dcrocker.net> <4A85A390.6050104@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:24:25 -0000

At 10:49 14-08-2009, Tony Hansen wrote:
>If Alexey wants to know what the status of the interoperability 
>report is, we can communicate that to him as part of the discussions 
>on the mailing list. Curiosity by the

Agreed.

>Pre-evaluation comments:
>
>In the IANA Considerations section, you might mention that the 
>reference to RFC 1652 on 
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters should be updated.

Shouldn't that be in Section 2 under "Proposed changes" as it is part 
of the preliminary evaluation report?

As the I-D will not only be processed by the IESG, a IANA 
Considerations section is not a requirement.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email