Re: [yam] Rough notes for IETF76 YAM WG Session

Ned Freed <> Sun, 13 December 2009 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5B43A6803 for <>; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:22:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Al3QPH7ooSlz for <>; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4A63A67BD for <>; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:21:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:17:10 -0800
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:12:52 +0100" <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format="flowed"
References: <> <>
To: Alessandro Vesely <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mauve; t=1260674305; bh=lH07VysRYGZ2Q+6HknVaK41ZM7ndgujC3AADFx0Dny8=; h=Cc:Message-id:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=K8Xn27bK2OKMwUfs2sBHizR/I5FTpK2V8Ez0sS1RFKfqlCAFqXGCWh/aMSW6qXTt2 5/jXGK5FpHi00kFPgvKVI1Ac/rpG/f+OSx8Kcp2F9Dsbof4/T1fqC1LSJ88OWeNtYL tXW/1vWYoljgvhIwruIsaIMghljmQRKjVyM6zzyc=
Subject: Re: [yam] Rough notes for IETF76 YAM WG Session
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:22:01 -0000

> S Moonesamy wrote:
> > The YAM Working Group held a meeting at IETF 76 on November 10, 2009.
> > [...]
> > Tony: Do we want to have a quick hum?  Whether to reach 5321 first.

> +1, fwiw. I feel 5321bis as the most exciting target, and that's why I
> subscribed to the yam list.

I will again repeat that 5321bis moving from draft to full is not a time for
lots of changes of the sort that you seem to be after. Indeed, there is
substantive risk with the present course continues 5321 will become ineligable
for processing under the rules for this WG.

> IMHO, putting forward 8bitmime has been wisely careful, but it
> resulted in a 90%-boilerplate pre-evaluation, which may partially
> justify IESG's reaction.

Nonsense. Had the IESG objected to the boilerplate nature of the pre-eval, they
could have, you know, actually reviewed the document and found the actual
problems it contained that weren't addressed in the pre-eval. They did nothing
of the sort.

> The WG can pursue the 2-step experimental
> process even without full IESG's cooperation --since we don't formally
> need their approval for those drafts-- and eventually present the
> final result as if it were produced by a 1-step process: In any case,
> the 2-step experiment will have been carried out, with visible results.

I myself am not so optimistic. But there's no need to speculate - we run the
process and see what happens.