Re: [yam] Issue #4

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> Hi Ned,

> Dave Crocker posted a revised version of
> draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation [1].  I will close Issue #4
> unless there are any objections.

It doesn't look right to me... First of all, reference [4], to RFC 1522, should
simply be dropped since it isn't referred to in the text. And the update to RFC
1522 is RFC 2047, so it makes no sense to update this reference to one to RFC
2046. And I see no reason to retain the reference to RFC 1521. The less people
look back to RFC 1521 the better off we will be.

What needs to happen is:

      Remove reference to [RFC0974].

      Add reference to [RFC5321].  Use it to replace reference to
      [RFC0821].

      Add reference to [RFC5234].  Use it to replace reference to
      [RFC0822].  This is for ABNF specification.

      Add references to [RFC2045] and [RFC2046]. Use them to replace references
      to [RFC1521].

      Remove reference to [RFC1522].

      Remove reference to [RFC1651].  Replace it with reference to
      [RFC5321].

The text involving the capitalized MAY needs to be replaced along the lines of
what I provided in my previous email on this topic.

And finally, an IANA considerations section needs to be added containing
a registration for this extension.

				Ned