Subject: Re: [yam] whither YAM?

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:24:18 -0500

--On Wednesday, February 09, 2011 18:49 +0000 Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> These are my two preferred choices. Details of the new charter
> don't matter to me that much, as long as the process
> experiment part is removed.
> My personal (not-as-an-AD) preferences are to do some
> combination of B) and C).
> 
>...
>>     B) We could review the documents that were in the
>>     original YAM charter. For any that we feel need to be
>>     revved no matter what (for example, 3798 MDN (one of my
>>     documents) is in this list), we can proceed with revising
>>     them.
>> 
>>     C) We start taking a look at the Proposed Standard
>>     mail-related standards and see what they need to moved
>>     forward to the next status.

For whatever my opinion is worth, I think it would be worth
taking a look at (C).  If there are documents at Proposed that
would benefit from a review of features and interoperability,
that is useful work regardless of what happens with the
standards process.  For anything else, it would be good to have
two-step sufficiently resolved that we knew what the targets
were that we had to meet (of course, the intent of the process
experiment was precisely to resolve that on a per-document
basis, so, while the experiment may be dead, the need for it is
not... unless we are to conclude that the IESG simply isn't
interested in advancing documents other than on a "guess what we
are likely to want" basis).

   john