IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 13 August 2009 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 E4D2C3A692B for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.195, 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 pR07tZ7Na5ki for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEBF3A6D5F for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id n7DNdKkk022957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1250206769; x=1250293169; bh=54nCww7x5bLlBWWeKLUncdULOFkRnxAZEPksSfMmRZM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=EbfS7g7yUYnrrIZvj2JenkW07NjhwFM6slo6L3d1r/XugVCBUJiypTCxDgD9x5ryl ikYkH/9zW0TaKV2WJk20xqcBPEfKYwZ6J2z5h0Ed5WXdv3MGgjcnaQr8esjmYyTvWK U/uXRm/FtqJj5rnFfuX8Io04IYk6+P2dVblg/oQ4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=iUgzm/OGQCswx7k2klPCh0WOUfYdU04+hcCD9DR6+7yTa07E/4c8FT2LzTeC9W6qD 0CEe/pbCLYDc2UsC0QQZsekPHgsTWpBiIYheCxG9ycxH5rTd192u5WPmFTukMHgMljR UM4zcMdiGBwXrC9iS2xtyLkt2wfZq6StMlDM2WI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090813155433.02c2d2a8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:38:26 -0700
To: yam@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A848309.8020107@dcrocker.net>
References: <4A848309.8020107@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation
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: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:40:09 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 14:18 13-08-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>With some feedback about the form, I'll try to fold changes back 
>into the master
>xml template.

The master XML template is available for download at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/wiki

Is the "Confidence document meets RFC 2026" item optional from a 
format point of view or should it be included for every pre-evaluation?

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email