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

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Dave.

======

Template comments:

I think we're on the right track with not offering the IESG any 
potentially side-tracking information.

If Alexey wants to know what the status of the interoperability report 
is, we can communicate that to him as part of the discussions on the 
mailing list. Curiosity by the IESG is fine, but should not side track 
them from doing their work. Particularly with the amount of changes that 
we plan to NOT do to each of these RFCs, I don't see his example from 
EPP as arising for the YAM documents. An informal check by him doesn't 
hurt, but shouldn't need to be codified.

I think the extractions you've chosen from 2026 are just fine.

A formatting nit, though, it might look better if the 2026 excerpt were 
done as a hanging indent. This would make the excerpt stand out more 
separately from the comment below it. For example,

    Time in Place:

       RFC 2026: _"A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard
             level for at least four (4) months, or until at least one
	    IETF meeting has occurred."_

       Published -- July 1994


======

Pre-evaluation comments:

In the IANA Considerations section, you might mention that the reference 
to RFC 1652 on http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters should be 
updated.

======

You may as well post it to the internet drafts. Then we can WGLC it.

	Tony Hansen
	[e-mail]

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> Revision attached.
> 
> Added RFC 2026 for each stage, so that a reader knows the salient rule, 
> without having to remember or check.
> 
> Removed the interoperability report stuff, per John's and my comments.
> 
> Added an IANA Considerations section.