Hi SM, On 31/Jul/11 05:35, S Moonesamy wrote: > At 01:49 AM 7/30/2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> The WG and the IESG already approved that document, so it can go >> to the RFC editor directly, AFAICS. > > The YAM WG approved the document for IESG processing. The IESG > processed the document and provided feedback to the YAM WG. The > IESG did not approve the publication of the document as a RFC. > Amending the document for publication is not a trivial effort. It > will have to go through IESG Evaluation.
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 WG Chairs cannot change the destiny of the document or violate the > working group charter. The Responsible Area Director, the WG co-chair > and the editors of the document will ask me to get a clue if I suggest > publishing the document. The WG charter was violated when we decided to froze, and is being violated now with premature shut down. Something went wrong, obviously, but there is still some good work that has been carried out. I think we all hope that John will reopen RFC 5321 and produce its successor. However, we have no clue about when that may happen. Until then, RFC 5321 with its known defects and conflicting errata remains the official Draft Standard, or, in case two-maturity-levels passes, Full Standard. Can we afford this, considering the current dreadful status of email? I'd be glad to know the opinions of other yam participants on this subject. By publishing an Informational RFC that cleanly states what changes are to be considered good, and marking RFC 5321 as updated by it, the IETF can enable consumers of its standards to learn the current state of affairs and draw their own conclusions about any specific change. We can skip any superfluous embellishment and just hand the document over to the RFC editor. What non-trivial amendments do you deem necessary for publication? [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation/writeup/ _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
