--On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 03:01 -0700 S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:
>... >> The editor and other interested parties agree that >> 5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-bis is an appropriate place only >> for editorial and other changes that would be appropriate for >> an upgrade from Draft-> Full Standard or, at most, for >> recycling in grade at Draft. Any proposal that contains even >> small elements of new features or changes to requirements >> gets written up in a separate draft and the authors/ >> proponents work with you (or whomever the sitting AD is) to >> figure out how to get it processed. Similarly, those who >> want to see 5321 revised in order to provide a comprehensive >> roadmap for SMTP (I interpret a few of the suggestions as >> being along those lines) are free to generate a new "roadmap" >> draft and see if they can get traction, but we don't use >> 5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-bis as a vehicle for that purpose. > > I haven't seen any separate draft since this working group has > been chartered. I presume that there isn't any interest in > introducing new features. The "separate draft" approach has been recommended consistently to those who wanted substantive additions or changes for a long time... certainly since the revision that produced 5321 was started and probably going back into the period of DRUMS and 2821. I cannot recall anything ever happening -- the advocates of those changes seem willing to put energy into insisting that changes to reflect relatively new ideas (and their perceptions of reality) should be slipped into the base SMTP specs but unwilling to generate and advocate for drafts that would permit those changes to be discussed and decided upon separately. I wasn't predicting that it would happen now either, just trying to identify the option and the desirability of handling new proposals that way rather than having them (again) sink a 5321 revision. john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
