> They said the changes proposed to RFC 5321 "seem suitable for Full
> Standard".  As they noted on the telechat, there was no intent to
> publish the document at the time.  Nevertheless, I read in the
> writeup[1] that the IESG approved it as an Informational RFC.

The IESG did not approve it; what you're reading is boilerplate that's
put into the datatracker automatically.  What you have to consider
instead are the following points:

1. Alexey put it on the telechat (2010-05-20) with the following note,
which remains in the tracker:

<< There is no intent to publish this document. Please review my email
messages on "IETF evaluation of
draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05.txt" management item. >>

2. The IESG never discussed the document in the "documents" portion of
the telechat. It was discussed as a management item, and no approval
for publication of the document in any form, with any target status,
was ever in any telechat minutes.

3. There remains a DISCUSS position on the document, put there by
Alexey, with the same text as the note above.

4. There are only two ballot positions on the document: a pro-forma
"yes" from Jari (almost certainly put there because it helped them
around a limitation of the tools), and Alexey's discuss.  To move to
approval for publication, the IESG would have to clear Alexey's
discuss position and have at least nine other ADs record "yes" or "no
objection" positions.

In other words, it's not just a matter of sending it to the RFC
editor.  It would require getting real approval from the IESG for
publication, which they were told a year and a half ago was NOT what
we were asking for.  I'd be very surprised if that were to happen
without objection (that is, without several other discuss ballots).

It is not worth doing that, and it's likely that it wouldn't go
through if we tried.  The right thing to do is to make the appropriate
changes in a proper 5321bis document, and advance 5321 to full
standard in the normal manner.

Barry (co-editor of 5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation)
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam

Reply via email to