Alessandro says: > The variant meaning of boilerplate contents keeps disconcerting me :-)
I understand. In this case, the message about the document's being approved for publication as [intended status according to the datatracker] is stuck into the writeup section automatically so that the standard announcement is ready for when the document is approved. The system isn't set up for I-Ds to go through the IESG and NOT get published. Alexey's note that was added separately (and put into the "announcement" message) was meant to explain the situation to the IESG, and the whole message was never meant to be sent out to the community -- though, of course, we can go look and see it. Confusing, yes. >> 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. > > +1, I obviously agree! Unfortunately, this option seems to be out of > reach right now. Any chance we can pursue it before shutting down? > Would the WG resolve to considerately complete 5321bis and only it? > > Let's not waste good work, please... I agree with Alessandro that it's a pity to waste the work that was done. And as I said before, I'd really like to see the current version of SMTP back at full Standard level. So here's my suggestion: I have the time to edit a 5321bis document, incorporating the changes from the pre-eval doc, and I can commit to doing that by the end of August (I'll actually try for 19 August). This is dependent upon a few things: 1. The working group thinks it's reasonable to give it a go, while we're finishing up 4409bis anyway. 2. The working group agrees to review the document without having to be subjected to the rack or the comfy chair, and agrees that the ONLY changes that are in scope are those that are in the pre-eval document, and new discoveries that are so bad that they absolutely have to be incorporated (that is, something we really badly messed up and missed). 3. One of the chairs or someone they delegate is willing to be an *active* shepherd, fending off out-of-scope discussions and pushing back on WG and IETF last-call comments as needed. 4. The ADs are willing to back us if we push back hard on any other change requests/demands that come up during IETF last call. 5. The ADs and the WG are willing to keep the working group open until the document gets through the IESG. We should be able to do that by the end of September, or perhaps mid-October (depending upon telechat schedules and how last call actually goes). 6. We all agree that if this blows up in our faces, with too many demands for other changes and the IESG's holding out in support of them, we will withdraw the document and close the WG without finishing it. In other words, I'm willing to put another month or two into it, as long as we're this far. If others (and the ADs) are with me, and John will send me the source code, I'll have at it. Barry _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
