IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 09 November 2009 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 EB8933A69AD for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:49:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 cuDFu9J9-huz for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1857C3A67F6 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [133.93.16.183] (host-16-183.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.16.183]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Sve7qQAJmVHO@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 06:50:19 +0000
Message-ID: <4AF7BBA7.3050007@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:50:15 +0900
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 SeaMonkey/1.1.15
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20091031115845.03fdeaa8@elandnews.com> <01NFMC338P960000BI@mauve.mrochek.com> <4AF7BB49.6010002@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF7BB49.6010002@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:49:55 -0000

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Ned Freed wrote:
 [...]
>>> 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.
>> And again, if that's supposed to be generally applicable rule, this 
>> effort is
>> effectively over.
> I wouldn't say it is over, but we will certainly discuss
s/discuss/come to conclusion/
> much quicker if YAM's process experiment is successful or not.
>
>
> I am largely agreeing with the rest of your note.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email