[yam] References in draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-00 (was: I-D Action:draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-00.txt)
SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 20 January 2010 05:28 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 D8C7F3A692B for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:28:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 4cWyiQ670DLf for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1D43A6876 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o0K5Rhud001184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:28:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1263965310; x=1264051710; bh=64BGjJQIV09Cq5FBXTMx2YMu66Pt8PLBYBttzHkpQvU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=i5d45b/Z15VRVDCLI0rrsKYQEOlWM3xWe9AuHU0E1Ga6p4mdw2hzEi9BrVAGKbMb5 POWyUA/hk9/6W8C5K8ovcsl8qCAwkhc//jPk98KoBbmwcWNe/4YECehaRkUvqkIjYh /CDFvFlSTdnmvilExh+ZmYGhwDMoV+R08gf8/RpY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=4B+Hyvt9qqdvICWygq9AzKtYVQqi6Ls/tkMvsoTv6l8JwOOIitv9jQEqSunlNH4RC +hRfZuPfHaGDs4pJ6ZjDZ1RAhQcrurcSnQ0+vJVJ0VTg+d4qhxh0PqEDkZ35j1eWEah tbbPQwnEwY1Dp+aSloQbNWWGoK8JU2lrrCVdkho=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100119203102.0b3f8f88@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:27:29 -0800
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B54A094.5020204@dcrocker.net>
References: <20100118073002.CE3763A63C9@core3.amsl.com> <4B54A094.5020204@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: [yam] References in draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-00 (was: I-D Action:draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-00.txt)
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:28:46 -0000
Hi Dave,
At 09:55 18-01-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>This implements the changes specified in the 'pre-evaluation' document.
I read the draft again. From Section 2:
"The syntax of the value is as follows, using the ABNF notation of
[RFC5322]:"
In draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-02, it was decided to:
"Add reference to [RFC5234]. Use it to replace reference to
[RFC0822]. This is for ABNF specification."
There would be only three downward references instead of four if RFC
5322 is replaced with RFC 5234.
Regards,
-sm