Re: [yam] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 28 February 2010 19:14 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 AEC5D28C18B; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.775
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96]
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 3U9+bZSE2aHq; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6876628C18A; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1SJEc00029168; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:44 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1267384487; x=1267470887; bh=wpfznO0fO4SroKswROGEiQlaGUo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Tu188Y2oJf1pOkgrIGTtHLCta4SKc4GLaw+4yxsdUMyGA5jApriTumzZcxKoFS0Bi jIdz2mmbEDXY6nW+g9dsLTcDKib/mt5xHw1b6wmkoxogtS7pWa4iCfUIIyy3wqzqSE YacGMdWyxXGQ4sTQAc3On6k7q0pAz8k2t3Y6zSx8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100228104329.097008d0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:09 -0800
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B8AAEDE.3060904@joelhalpern.com>
References: <184b5e71002260939p2e3ac77y3efbe5eae0b7d4b6@mail.gmail.com> <4B8AAEDE.3060904@joelhalpern.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] [Gen-art] review: 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: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:14:57 -0000
Hi Joel, Thank you for your review. At 09:58 28-02-10, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >Comment: I presume the use of domain names that are not formal >examples (are not compliant with 2606) is done in order to reduce >gratuitous changes from RFC 1652, which used the same domains names >for examples which are used here. Yes, this is to avoid gratuitous changes when advancing the specification from Draft Standard to Full Standard. Regards, S. Moonesamy