IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00

Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> Sun, 01 November 2009 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.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 ABA473A67A5 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:20:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 MPB3d8hQeuXA for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f183.google.com (mail-yw0-f183.google.com [209.85.211.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2F03A63D3 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywh13 with SMTP id 13so4563267ywh.29 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:20:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nTj7rXDVq/Z24BptqaRh8P1LTlhyhPaTmrcBzjLlc0g=; b=CXPz/SGDt9Lx1Yfs5rcpk1Zt80VYdqJFZDifFTM0VLp/ufPE4f5v62Wsn+WWfqYLkO mm2JTaK4Fmf1AGRIewec5O6upAWGou3vgxdwKUHEhns/uXRcyfb7v08NACCUS76Zz4zP R8wO88sWI+nPjJV5XwrspLQX4TIYqofTXdBgk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GBiPJxcphQXKxrGMRrMAS7UDyjMKBm2T2WBnHQQ10UfGCRi+kyNBjjLmjqwlCQCF20 S0sL6cWl4EWWtLi2ODMW6JLXjK/btts3i8ebeQsV7CA0CVBMY4dfAO07kG6nRLjxjJO/ F3P/33mwl1fAF7C4lxPO2TTCQbfGjsnI4r8ng=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.30.40 with SMTP id d40mr6586015ybd.133.1257088827376; Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:20:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20091031115845.03fdeaa8@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20091031115845.03fdeaa8@elandnews.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:20:27 -0400
Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a0911010720x5892204at211d7357e7cd701a@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org
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: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:20:12 -0000

> the IESG cannot really judge the process by doing a simple document.  It
> doesn't make sense to approve extensions first, then run into the
> possibility of not approving changes to the document being  extended.  The
> WG should move the main documents first instead of the dependent documents.
>
> The IESG would like to ask the YAM WG to evaluate a core document such as
> RFC 5321 or RFC 5322.  It is viewed that the evaluation of these documents
> is more likely to highlight issues that might be relevant to all the other
> documents.
>
> The next step the AD recommends is to review RFC 5321 and come back to
> 8BITMIME once the pre-evaluation of RFC 5321 is complete.
>
> Please comment on the above.

I agree with it.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email