[yam] getting ready for WG Last Call on draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt
Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Tue, 18 August 2009 20:04 UTC
Return-Path: <tony@att.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 9D53A3A6A50 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 zkvABknMAGMA for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8BB3A67DB for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1250625900!26065631!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.1.3; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.112.25]
Received: (qmail 5004 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2009 20:05:00 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp3.sbc.com (HELO tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com) (144.160.112.25) by server-3.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Aug 2009 20:05:00 -0000
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK4xm5003205 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:05:00 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK4sDd002559 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:04:54 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK4sug005189 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:04:54 -0400
Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK4kqq005019 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:04:46 -0400
Received: from [135.25.190.18] (gilly-ibm.ugd.att.com[135.25.190.18]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20090818200446gw1003ibcqe> (Authid: tony); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:04:46 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.25.190.18]
Message-ID: <4A8B095E.6090504@att.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:04:46 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: yam@ietf.org
References: <20090817150001.589343A6A63@core3.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090817150001.589343A6A63@core3.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [yam] getting ready for WG Last Call on draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:04:56 -0000
I promised that we'd have a WG Last Call on the evaluation template for RFC 1652bis after it was posted. Given the number of preliminary versions we've gone through and the comments and turnaround on those, we've actually got a lot of water under the bridge already for this draft. How long do we want to have these WGLCs run? Is one week sufficient? I certainly don't want to go longer than two weeks. I'm going to start the WGLC on Thursday. Please comment on the length to run it. And please do review draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation. Tony Hansen YAM co-chair Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Yet Another Mail Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Preliminary Evaluation of RFC 1652 for Advancement to Full Standard > Author(s) : D. Crocker > Filename : draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt > Pages : 5 > Date : 2009-08-17 > > This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC 1652 "SMTP Service > Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport" for advancement from Draft to Full > Standard. It has been prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working > Group.