Re: [yam] Referencing 1652bis and update to RFC 5321/5322

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, June 28, 2010 03:19 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> At 20:22 27-06-10, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Per my earlier note, if the WG is going to go down that path,
>> I think it is important to distinguish between:
>> 
>>         (1) In need of a rev because of specific issues that
>>         require clarification.
>> 
>>         (2) In need of a rev because the document itself is
>>         sufficiently defective that it requires a complete
>>         revision and replacement.
> 
> Some of the issues are more or less clarifications instead of
> the defects.  There is one issue (#22) listed as an
> interperability problem.
> 
>> queue only because we had to promise them to IESG members for
>> the Full Standard version in order to get 5321 signed off.  If
>> the IESG makes "Full Standard version" meaningless, there
>> should be no need to do that work.
> 
> There is also an impact on substantial parts of the current
> charter.  If this is turned into document updates to the email
> specifications, it might end up being contentious.
> 
> If and only if people are still interested in updating some of
> the documents, what should be the scope of the work?

Let's turn this around.  One of the attractions of the
"pre-evaluation" model as it has evolved is independent of the
agreement with the IESG.  As an editor, I have a list of changes
the WG wants me to make (or at least that someone in the WG has
proposed to make) and know that I can focus my editing time in
those areas, rather than expecting to go back and forth
(potentially endlessly) about what is supposed to be done.  

If we are now moving in the direction of "no full standards
under the current rules" then the pre-eval documents need to be
reviewed --both within the WG and potentially with the IESG as
to what standing they have.   In particular, if things change to
new definitions of maturity levels (independent of how many of
them there are), the assumptions under which the pre-eval
documents were constructed become more or less irrelevant.  If
those documents are going to continue to have value under those
circumstances, we would presumably need to go back and rethink
them and what they mean.

While I'm happy to have the actual discussion in Maastricht, is
it reasonable to suggest that we simply stop substantive work
until the issue is resolved?  One way to interpret the Housley
draft (and I can't tell whether it has support from within the
IESG or not), is that we are wasting our time.   If so...

regards,
    john