[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