Subject: [yam] Comments on draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:59:25 -0700

draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00 was evaluated again by 
the IESG today ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/3211/ 
).  The discussion was about the process to be followed.  I am 
waiting for more details from Alexey Melnikov before posting about that.

There is a comment from Lisa Dusseault about security.  Please refer 
to the text below instead as it reflects the current status:

   'My point, now that I've figured out how to explain it, is that
    if the WG wants to avoid late surprises, it will cause the IESG
    to think about whether the security considerations need to be
    upgraded, rather than omit talking about them in the "pre-evaluation"
    documents.  Otherwise, security considerations are still likely to be
    the cause of late surprises.

    In many cases, as in 1652, the content could be very brief.
    E.g. "Since this is an extension to SMTP, the main security concerns
    have to do with SMTP itself rather than this document.  The WG feels
    the security considerations of this document will be sufficient for
    Full Standard status."'

There was a comment from Adrian Farrel that "The universal deployment 
of this feature is well-known" in the I-D seems like an 
exaggeration.  Based on feedback from John Klensin and Tony Hansen, 
it is suggested that a sentence similar to the text below be used in 
other pre-evaluation I-Ds:

   'The extensive deployment of this feature is well-known within the email
    implementation and operational communities.'

The DISCUSS positions and comments are related to the work of the 
Working Group instead of being questions that Dave Crocker should 
address.  The document itself 
(draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00) is scheduled to be 
evaluated by the IESG on October 22.

Please comment on the point raised by Lisa.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:12:10 +0100

Hi SM,
Some quick comments on a part of your message.

S Moonesamy wrote:
 [...]

> of this feature is well-known" in the I-D seems like an exaggeration.  
> Based on feedback from John Klensin and Tony Hansen, it is suggested 
> that a sentence similar to the text below be used in other 
> pre-evaluation I-Ds:
>

(not wearing any hats:) This looks good to me.

> Working Group instead of being questions that Dave Crocker should address.

(with my AD hat on) Agreed.

> The document itself (draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00) is 
> scheduled to be evaluated by the IESG on October 22.

I will let the WG know if anything else comes up during the discussion 
next week.