On 11.08.2011 08:44, S Moonesamy wrote: > At 09:13 10-08-2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> Perhaps, we could as well do it quickly enough to not delay the WG shutdown >> considerably. I concur with SM that we should avoid prolonged discussions, >> and a time constraint gives that. Do we need to recharter to put the >> revision as a WG draft? > > Pete, who happens to be the Responsible Area Director, for this working group > commented on the discussion about shutting down. The working group has been > given ample opportunity to overcome the inevitable.
You mean http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00727.html? Importing XML for 5321bis has been tried already. Does Pete mean the XML of the pre-evaluation doc? There are some tracker issues to be added, change the title and the category, ... This XML is publicly available, so anyone can carry out any change. If I were at my office rather than using this handicapped mini-pc, I'd try it myself. There seems to be about a dozen of us who are still loitering around this dying WG. Is it enough to get a rough consensus? > A recharter is off the table (see minutes from IETF81). Right. >> For clarity, let me add that I don't oppose to separate drafts for proposals >> that deserve one. The additional section I propose is meant to actually >> grant a chance to any half-baked issue that wouldn't be put forward >> otherwise, so as to take a correct position fix for SMTP. > > See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00731.html Yes, I saw it. But I'm still missing what are the actual changes and who are their advocates. I happened to argue with John on a kind of change that may match the description he writes. That story consists of a few mail messages and an SMTP extension draft that I submitted following his advice, which expired unnoticed as he had anticipated. However, I don't think John would include this story among the "substantive additions or changes" he addresses, as it cannot hinder 5321bis in any way any more. I think that if we (most noticeably, John) proclaim that we will mention any "relatively new ideas" in the new doc --in a section that is not part of the SMTP spec, but that will be contemplated on next revision-- we will /not/ get an overwhelming tide of submissions. Instead, we will have kept our word about this list's purpose, and we will know what we are talking about when we reopen RFC 5321. Hey, the new stuff can even go under a title of "ideas already proposed and rejected for SMTP", so that, at least, we won't have more proponents of the same ideas again and again. jm2c _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
