Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-03

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 11 February 2010 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA493A773C for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:27:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.959
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IUByCOKFz8iT for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329AE3A773B for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1BGSfTB032174; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:28:48 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1265905731; x=1265992131; bh=UR//VlpSqAxLMIhO0v+m/HEBIBE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=FiqkhxBATFmtAQDqhI7x1Co8KBDCQNW5rgHE8SzSWJCzKdjE7Rm/onn025TWyM7U4 wemB8UR7PqDsSNJ8ksLRbCju4qLhVPDDt0I7nZooOjF2cnzTgNwK4H5Xc1V5JcwJC5 geW9LbtwelANVPs3jAHMceM/JV9bvtilv6a7Rpow=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:27:09 -0800
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_H=F6nes=22?= <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-03
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:27:38 -0000

Hi Alfred,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the review.

At 05:38 11-02-10, Alfred Hönes wrote:
>I have respun my recollection from the final stages of the 2821bis
>effort.  Some of my LC comments those days had been postponed in
>favor of getting the document out.  Skimming over the 5321bis
>pre-evaluation draft, I did not see explicit mention of these
>details -- but I might have missed these so far; I still need some
>spare time to more closely read the draft.  In particular, I'm not
>sure whether or not the last two items in Section 2.4 are intended
>to cover these editorial issues; Appendix B does not refer to the
>postponed 2821bis LC review comments.

Editorial issues will be considered, within 
reason.  If you are not sure whether your issues 
are covered by the pre-evaluation I-D, please 
post a message about them.  Which postponed 
2821bis LC comments are you referring to?

>OTOH, I already had performed a new independent close reading of
>RFC 5321 from scratch, but for typing in my marginal notes (on
>~40 pages of the RFC) and more closely investigate some of my
>observations, I'll need (at least) another full working day,
>which I did not have available so far this year.

The WGLC ends today.  The WG is not going to ignore substantive comments.

>Before forwarding the pre-evaluation draft to the IESG,
>I suggest to align temporal referals to the document history
>(in order to avoid confusion); e.g. in bullet 5. of 2.5,
>"last year" is OBE, "in 2008" should be substituted.

Good catch.

S. Moonesamy