Subject: [yam] I-D Action:draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:00:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Yet Another Mail Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Preliminary Evaluation of RFC 1652 for Advancement to Full Standard
	Author(s)       : D. Crocker
	Filename        : draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2009-08-17

This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC 1652 "SMTP Service
Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport" for advancement from Draft to Full
Standard.  It has been prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working
Group.

THIS INTERNET DRAFT IS WRITTEN TO FACILITATE PROCESSING WITHIN THE
IESG.  IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN RFC.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:04:46 -0400

I promised that we'd have a WG Last Call on the evaluation template for 
RFC 1652bis after it was posted. Given the number of preliminary 
versions we've gone through and the comments and turnaround on those, 
we've actually got a lot of water under the bridge already for this draft.

How long do we want to have these WGLCs run? Is one week sufficient? I 
certainly don't want to go longer than two weeks.

I'm going to start the WGLC on Thursday. Please comment on the length to 
run it.

And please do review draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation.

	Tony Hansen
	YAM co-chair

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:47:23 -0700

We're in the middle of August.  This (and December) are the worst possible times 
for a Last Call.

I suggest 2 weeks normally, but 3 weeks this time.

d/

Tony Hansen wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> yam mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
> 

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:30:57 -0700

Hi Tony,
At 13:04 18-08-2009, Tony Hansen wrote:
>How long do we want to have these WGLCs run? Is one week sufficient? 
>I certainly don't want to go longer than two weeks.
>
>I'm going to start the WGLC on Thursday. Please comment on the 
>length to run it.

Chris mentioned one week for the WGLC.  From a personal perspective, 
I don't have any problem with that.

If I understood the process correctly, there may be two WGLCs, the 
first one for the evaluation template for RFC 1652bis and the second 
one for the I-D that goes through the normal procedures.  That's a 
minimum of four weeks.  It may turn out to be much longer in practice 
due to other considerations (see Dave's comment).

Assuming the WG wants to keep the combined review period down to 
three weeks, then there's a one week WGLC and one two-week 
WGLC.  Does anyone have a preference for a one-week pre-evaluation 
and a two-week WGLC on the I-D, or a different permutation?  I'm open 
to other alternatives.

Regards,
-sm