Hi SM, On 29/Jul/11 22:50, S Moonesamy wrote: > At 08:08 AM 7/28/2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> However, that document contains knowledge that will not be properly >> available for a long time, if yam is shut down so abruptly as to not >> even complete half-baked work. If that's the fate of yam, I'd rather >> publish the pre-evaluation document as-is (much like what was done >> with RFC 5672.) > > draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05 is different from RFC > 5672. That RFC updates RFC 4871 whereas the pre-evaluation I-D was > generated for IESG processing. The Abstract section clearly states > that the I-D is not meant to be published as a RFC.
Correct, that meaning was derived from the two-step method. Since we changed our mind on the method, as well as on yam itself, we could as well change the destiny of that draft and publish it. I think it will take less than an hour to amend the abstract by replacing that restriction with an explicative paragraph. The WG and the IESG already approved that document, so it can go to the RFC editor directly, AFAICS. Getting the document together roughly took the time from John's setting aside his rfc5321-numbered on 14 Dec 2008, through first pre-evaluation version on 12 Nov 2009, to IESG's approval announced on 26 May 2010. I see no need to rot it away. _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
