Re: [yam] Referencing 1652bis and update to RFC 5321/5322

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,
At 17:56 27-06-10, Tony Hansen wrote:
>I would call this an excellent agenda item for Maastricht.

Yes.

>Some of the documents are quite needy of a rev, irrespective of 
>Russ' document's outcome. Deciding on the set of documents that make 
>up that list would be one of the tasks for the WG. One of the 
>interesting thing about using the pre-evaluation step is that we've 
>forced people to think through the state of the documents and to get 
>buy-in from the WG for those changes. None of the pre-eval docs so 
>far have been contentious, but future ones may be more so.

Some of the documents could be do with a revision.

It is an effort to do these updates especially for the authors/editors.

At 20:22 27-06-10, John C Klensin wrote:
>Per my earlier note, if the WG is going to go down that path, I
>think it is important to distinguish between:
>
>         (1) In need of a rev because of specific issues that
>         require clarification.
>
>         (2) In need of a rev because the document itself is
>         sufficiently defective that it requires a complete
>         revision and replacement.

Some of the issues are more or less clarifications instead of the 
defects.  There is one issue (#22) listed as an interperability problem.

>queue only because we had to promise them to IESG members for
>the Full Standard version in order to get 5321 signed off.  If
>the IESG makes "Full Standard version" meaningless, there should
>be no need to do that work.

There is also an impact on substantial parts of the current 
charter.  If this is turned into document updates to the email 
specifications, it might end up being contentious.

If and only if people are still interested in updating some of the 
documents, what should be the scope of the work?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy