[yam] Publication request for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 19 February 2010 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 00DC63A8004; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:41:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, 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 9GCo5anIfIvB; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B263A7FE6; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1JIgpor004635; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:42:57 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1266604980; x=1266691380; bh=h0KfsVfEvC56iAoay4eumfaZ30A=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=0UzX1q6TzeJNBaz61uh375AS6zqQdSnLaiBf/XCWcc9A1DdAQNzJY3PsIyosLGUXZ h0vDMm695ToG+N83jmHjyyDmIGbcCpSAGyYSxGV/eRbPG6I7JK0vHHgNKEugtbVEEr c4mF6kLxPA2N86OpsJpqnlh+tSmUyPpmulLsvoAc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100219095640.088abfd8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:42:22 -0800
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: [yam] Publication request for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
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: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:41:15 -0000

Hi Alexey,

The YAM WG requests publication of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03.  The 
Document Shepherd Write-Up is below.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport
Document Shepherd Write-up for the IESG

1.a.  The Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 is S. 
Moonesamy.  I have personally reviewed this version of the document 
and I believe that this version is reading for forwarding to the IESG 
for publication.

1.b.  RFC 1652 was reviewed by participants of the YAM WG and a 
pre-evaluation I-D (draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-02) was 
submitted to the IESG.  This document incorporates the changes that 
was identified during the pre-evaluation of RFC 1652, from the 
feedback received from the IESG and during reviews by participants of 
the YAM WG.  I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of 
the reviews that have been performed.

1.c. I do not believe that the document needs more review from a 
particular or broader perspective as the specification is well-known 
to many participants in the YAM WG and there is already significant 
implementation and successful operational experience.

1.d. I do not have any specific concerns or issues with this 
document.  I am not aware of any IPR claims.

1.e. The WG as a whole understands and agrees to the publication of 
the document.

1.f. There hasn't been any threat of appeal or any discontent about 
the document.

1.g. There are three instances of non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in 
Section 4.  This is in accordance with the YAM WG 
Charter.  draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 is submitted for publication 
as "Full Standard".

1.h. There are only normative references in this document.  RFC 2045, 
RFC 2046, RFC 5321 and RFC 5322 are downward references.  The YAM WG 
currently has the goal of also moving these documents to Full Standard.

1.i. There is an IANA considerations section and it is consistent 
with the body of the document.  There is already a registration for 
8BITMIME in the SMTP Service Extensions registry.  The entry should be updated.

1.j. The document only contains an ABNF rule and it validates 
correctly in an automated checker.

1.k. Document Announcement draft

Technical Summary

This document defines an extension to the SMTP service (8BITMIME) 
whereby an SMTP content body consisting of text containing octets 
outside of the US-ASCII octet range (hex 00-7F) may be relayed using SMTP.

Working Group Summary

The YAM WG adopted a two-step approach to move this document to Full 
Standard.  The first step was a pre-evaluation of the existing 
specification to identify changes and non-changes.  The YAM WG 
requested feedback from the IESG on those decisions.  The second step 
was to incorporate the changes into the document and ensure that any 
implementation that conforms to the Draft Standard version of the 
specification remains compliant with this document.  There was no 
controversy.  There is consensus to move the specification to Full Standard.

Document Quality

The document has a high degree of technical maturity.  In the 16 
years since publication, this specification has become an integral 
part of all professional SMTP software products and is widely 
supported in Internet Mail operations.  Ned Freed rewrote part of the 
text in Section 3 as the Draft Standard version was published prior 
to the introduction of key words to indicate requirement levels.

Personnel

S. Moonesamy is the Document Shepherd for this document.  Alexey 
Melnikov is the Responsible Area Director.