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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Tony Hansen wrote:

> Thank you Dave.
>
> ======
>
> Template comments:
>
> I think we're on the right track with not offering the IESG any 
> potentially side-tracking information.
>
> 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 IESG is fine, but should not side track 
> them from doing their work. Particularly with the amount of changes 
> that we plan to NOT do to each of these RFCs, I don't see his example 
> from EPP as arising for the YAM documents. An informal check by him 
> doesn't hurt, but shouldn't need to be codified.

Fine with me.

> I think the extractions you've chosen from 2026 are just fine.
>
> A formatting nit, though, it might look better if the 2026 excerpt 
> were done as a hanging indent. This would make the excerpt stand out 
> more separately from the comment below it. For example,
>
>    Time in Place:
>
>       RFC 2026: _"A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard
>             level for at least four (4) months, or until at least one
>         IETF meeting has occurred."_
>
>       Published -- July 1994
>
>
> ======
>
> 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.

Indeed.

Other suggestions (as an individual contributor):
1). I think the extension registration needs to be updated to say that 
the extension is valid on Submission port.
2). Change 1 line ABNF in section 2 to use RFC 5234 syntax:
OLD:

body-value ::= "7BIT" / "8BITMIME"


NEW:

body-value = "7BIT" / "8BITMIME"


> ======
>
> You may as well post it to the internet drafts. Then we can WGLC it.

Yes please. And making it a draft-ietf-yam-... will make it slightly 
easier for tools used by IESG.