[yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 31 October 2009 19:37 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 320B03A67D6 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 MYn2E-+uCuEy for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8153A67A8 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9VJbiOj015785 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:37:49 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1257017870; x=1257104270; bh=CZ0ixfdfQk9Ww1t6FK93v6Hfsu4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=zi2nBqvXmuVkI1IlMh+C9Fp8GGOQQUd+mgT1Tk62DQPev7FldW9ITrEboQCQOZTPK /ImpXTxdlAYKpjgNlnNqwXps2najSvnDpUwT9zbzBceHmCl6Q6CgEKEMxdKJ2o//7Q IycmIViffXr78mEalbQhPPH1qtae2Uhfey7rSqSo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091031115845.03fdeaa8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:36:42 -0700
To: yam@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00
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: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:37:39 -0000
The IESG has completed its evaluation of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00. There is an outstanding issue about Security Considerations. I posted a message about that at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00132.html I received some feedback from the Alexey. I edited the information for this status update. The IESG is fine with all the changes except for the downreferences. The format is generally Ok, several ADs commented that the pre-evaluation document was useful. The following paragraphs are about the process. The general view was that 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. Regards, S. Moonesamy YAM WG Secretary
- [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evalu… S Moonesamy
- [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evalu… S Moonesamy
- [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evalu… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-e… Barry Leiba
- Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-e… Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-e… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-e… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-e… Alexey Melnikov
- [yam] Issue #4 (was: Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc16… SM
- Re: [yam] Issue #4 Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] Issue #4 SM
- Re: [yam] Issue #4 S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] Issue #4 Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] Issue #4 Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] Issue #4 S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] Issue #4 SM