Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-03

Alfred Hönes <> Thu, 11 February 2010 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D0E3A7550 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:37:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.655
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.596, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KckSs34pfIDp for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C658E3A7559 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: $/16.3.2) id AA088605529; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:38:50 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id OAA05570; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:38:48 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:38:47 +0100 (MEZ)
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-03
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:37:54 -0000

At Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:42:14 -0800, S Moonesamy wrote:
> This is to remind you that the WGLC for
> draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-03 [1] ends on Thursday
> February 11th.  There hasn't been any comments on that I-D.
> Please post a message if you have read the I-D.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> YAM WG Secretary

I have been pointed at the progress in YAM, but have been
overwhelmed by other stuff during the last few weeks.

I sincerely apologize for the delays, but things happen ...

I have respun my recollection from the final stages of the 2821bis
effort.  Some of my LC comments those days had been postponed in
favor of getting the document out.  Skimming over the 5321bis
pre-evaluation draft, I did not see explicit mention of these
details -- but I might have missed these so far; I still need some
spare time to more closely read the draft.  In particular, I'm not
sure whether or not the last two items in Section 2.4 are intended
to cover these editorial issues; Appendix B does not refer to the
postponed 2821bis LC review comments.

OTOH, I already had performed a new independent close reading of
RFC 5321 from scratch, but for typing in my marginal notes (on
~40 pages of the RFC) and more closely investigate some of my
observations, I'll need (at least) another full working day,
which I did not have available so far this year.

I hope that all those details are covered by the spirit of
section 2.4 of the pre-evaluation draft and do not conflict
with section 2.5.

Before forwarding the pre-evaluation draft to the IESG,
I suggest to align temporal referals to the document history
(in order to avoid confusion); e.g. in bullet 5. of 2.5,
"last year" is OBE, "in 2008" should be substituted.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.


| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:                     |