Subject: [yam] meta question on draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-eval

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:14:41 -0500

There is a meta question that needs to be answered about 
draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-eval before we can WGLC it. It was 
raised as part of Alessandro's posting, but no one has been addressing 
it. To whit:

Should our pre-evaluations provide an overview of known errata and how 
they are going to be dealt with?

Alessandro's posting suggested that we have a subsection of section 2.4.

Some Cons:
	Makes putting a pre-eval take slightly longer.

Some Pros:
	Makes putting the final doc together take a short amount of
	time.
	Eliminates hand-waving on places we know changes are going to
	occur.
	It may make getting it through the IESG easier.

What do people think?

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:44:24 +0100

>     Makes putting a pre-eval take slightly longer.

FWIW, I heuristically reasoned that given that there are two steps 
involved, there may be some advantages if the work is being divided 
more or less equally between them. However, I hadn't taken the trac 
tool into account. If WGLCs also concern issues of trac tickets 
linked to the relevant component, it could be enough to include 
links, in sections 2.4 and 2.5, that reflect the current WG's 
stance. If the authors deem more convenient to maintain trac tickets 
than pre-evaluation drafts, that is.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:08:37 -0800

At 07:14 PM 11/22/2009, Tony Hansen wrote:
>raised as part of Alessandro's posting, but no one has been 
>addressing it. To whit:
>
>Should our pre-evaluations provide an overview of known errata and 
>how they are going to be dealt with?

Errata are generally discussed within the Working Group which then 
decides whether they are to be included in the next document 
update.  That's part of the pre-evaluation that this Working Group is 
doing.  I think that errata should be treated as other proposed 
changes and non-changes.  The WG can deal with in on a case to case 
basis.  If we know that changes are going to occur or if the issue 
seems controversial, it can be documented in the pre-evaluation I-D.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:15:32 -0800

Hi Alessandro,
>than pre-evaluation drafts, that is.

I am using the Trac tickets to track the issues for each 
document.  As it is more of an tool for the Working Group, the links 
should not be used in the pre-evaluation I-D.  The actual record of 
the discussion is the archive for this mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:36:47 -0800 (PST)

> they are going to be dealt with?

Based on the 1652bis experience, I think they darned well better or we might 
as well disband now.

				Ned