Re: [yam] #12: Using RFC 2606 for examples

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> Hi Ned,
> At 11:56 06-12-2009, Ned Freed wrote:
> >Since this keeps coming up (mostly as a poor substitute for actually
> >performing
> >an in-depth technical review), I have to agree - explicitly stating that this
> >document is not in conformance with RFC 2606 may save us some time explaining
> >this to any new "reviewers" that happen by.

> I agree that the non-conformance with RFC 2606 has to documented in
> the pre-evaluation I-D.  Note that there is a mention of this issue
> in Section 1.3 of RFC 5321.

RIght, I was talking about calling this out in the pre-evaluation document.

> We might still have to explain the non-compliance with Section 3,
> Item 6 of the ID-Checklist.  The alternative is to wait and see
> whether this gets a DISCUSS.

Well, I'd be the first to say I have no tricky strategic plan here. Perhaps an
argument can be made as to why we'd want to leave an opening for a DISCUSS, but
my approach here is the straightfoward one of "let's tie every political loose
end we see".

> P.S. I appreciate your technical reviews.

THanks, but I have to say I regard this particular one as a purely pplitical
thing - how to get what we have approved with a minimal amount of fuss.

				Ned