Re: [yam] Referencing 1652bis and update to RFC 5321/5322

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On 27/Jun/10 12:57, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 6/27/2010 11:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> This is not the question I've asked ;-). "Are people interested in
>> updating documents" and "are people interested in moving from Draft to
>> Full" are not quite the same.
>
> Strictly speaking, the task of this working group, as I understand it,
> is to move docs from Draft to Full. The editing is in the service of
> that goal rather than being a goal of its own.

Although that's correct, some documents really deserve a revision.  I, 
for one, would be interested in completing the work defined by the 
existing issues.

Documents that need no editing need no advancement, /if/ that proposal 
passes.  For those cases, it is possible that the IESG has to actually 
work more than the WG in order to produce an advancement, so the 
decision could be left with them...