At 07:39 AM 7/8/2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Besides a slight taste of bait-and-switch, the deeper question is
whether the considerable effort to do this revision effort is viewed
as worth the considerable effort it will take, especially in
comparison with other email tasks the IETF might pursue?
The latest round of discussions has highlighted that some of the YAM
work intersects with work being carried out in other working groups.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev asked a question [1] about RFC 3282 and RFC
1864. Nobody made a case for taking them up as work items.
Barry Leiba mentioned [2] that:
"it's particularly important to do 4409, 5321, and 5322. We
need to do 5321 and 5322 in order to finally obsolete 821 and 822, and
I think 4409 needs to be at the same level as 5321. I'm ambivalent
about spending the time to do the others -- I'm not sure how much they
buy us."
Alexey Melnikov would like to see some bugs in ABNFs of DSN, MDN and
MIME fixed [3].
Dave Crocker mentioned [4] that the purpose of yam was to advance
some documents, but that the continuing flux in the formal standards
process prompted a wg decision to put things on hold until the
standards process issues were resolved. John Klensin was in agreement [5].
I'll include some of the discussion about updating multipart/report
that was brought up by Murray Kucherawy [6]. Ned Freed has no
opinion about the venue for the work [7]. John Klensin suggested a
focused review discussion and get out a document that
updates the base MIME specification if someone has the motivation and
time to invest in such an effort [8]. Ned Freed would like to see
such changes lifted in separate documents [9]. Murray Kucherawy
raised a concern about such an approach as it leaves two versions of
multipart/report around [10]. He also stated that he is in favor of
a charter that allows the following:
"However the WG might reach consensus that certain changes have to be
done in order to remove restrictions which were proven to be problematic
in the field, or which restrict evolution of the protocols."
Please read the above as a rough summary. As usual, if your comments
are misinterpreted, post a message to the mailing list.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG co-chair
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00648.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00644.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00645.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00646.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00650.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00659.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00661.html
8. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00663.html
9. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00670.html
10. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00673.html
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
