Subject: [yam] I-D Action:draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:30:01 -0800 (PST)

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-01.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2009-12-09

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-01.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: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:32:56 -0800

> This draft is a work item of the Yet Another Mail Working Group of the IETF.

Folks,

Diffs from the -00 version are attached.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt

draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-01.txt

YAM D. Crocker, Ed.

YAM D. Crocker, Ed.

Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking

Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking

Intended status: Informational August 17, 2009

Intended status: Informational December 9, 2009

Expires: February 18, 2010

Expires: June 12, 2010

Preliminary Evaluation of RFC 1652 for Advancement to Full Standard

Preliminary Evaluation of RFC 1652 for Advancement to Full Standard

draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00

draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-01

Abstract

Group.

Status of this Memo

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the

provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering

Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that

Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that

other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

Drafts.

Drafts.

skipping to change at page 1, line 32

skipping to change at page 1, line 42

and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference

time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference

material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2010.

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2010.

Copyright Notice

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

document authors. All rights reserved.

document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights

publication of this document. Please review these documents

and restrictions with respect to this document.

carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must

Abstract

include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as

described in the BSD License.

Group.

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

A preliminary evaluation has been made of SMTP Service Extension for

A preliminary evaluation has been made of SMTP Service Extension for

8bit-MIMEtransport [RFC1652] by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working

8bit-MIMEtransport [RFC1652] by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working

Group for advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG

Group for advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG

requests feedback from the IESG on this decision.

requests feedback from the IESG on this decision.

1.1. Note to RFC Editor

1.1. Note to RFC Editor

skipping to change at page 3, line 17

skipping to change at page 3, line 22

obtaining explicit statements of deployment for specific SMTP

obtaining explicit statements of deployment for specific SMTP

implementations.

implementations.

Proposed Changes (the YAM WG proposes making the following changes in

Proposed Changes (the YAM WG proposes making the following changes in

a revision:

a revision:

RFC2026: _"Minor revisions are expected, but a significant

RFC2026: _"Minor revisions are expected, but a significant

revision may require that the specification accumulate more

revision may require that the specification accumulate more

experience at its current maturity level before progressing."_

experience at its current maturity level before progressing."_

Add reference to [RFC5321]. Retain reference to [RFC0821].

Remove reference to [RFC0974]

Add reference to [RFC5322]. Retain reference to [RFC0822].

Add reference to [RFC5321]. Use it to replace reference to

[RFC0821].

Add reference to [RFC5234]. Use it to replace reference to

[RFC0822]. This is for ABNF specification.

Add reference to [RFC2045]. Retain reference to [RFC1521].

Add reference to [RFC2045]. Retain reference to [RFC1521].

Add reference to [RFC2046]. Retain reference to [RFC1522].

Add reference to [RFC2046]. Retain reference to [RFC1522].

Remove reference to [RFC1651]. Obsoleted by [RFC2821] and

Remove reference to [RFC1651]. Replace it with reference to

[RFC5321].

[RFC5321].

Non-Changes (the YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following

Non-Changes (the YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following

changes):

changes):

None.

None.

Downward references (At Full Standard, the following references would

Downward references (At Full Standard, the following references would

be downward references):

be downward references):

[RFC5321], [RFC5322], [RFC2045], [RFC2046].

[RFC5321], [RFC2045], [RFC2046].

NOTE: The YAM working group currently has the goal of also

NOTE: The YAM working group currently has the goal of also

moving these documents to Full Standard.

moving these documents to Full Standard.

3. IESG Feedback

3. IESG Feedback

The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on these decisions. In

The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on these decisions. In

particular:

particular:

o Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a

o Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a

skipping to change at page 4, line 28

skipping to change at page 4, line 36

considerations.

considerations.

6. Normative References

6. Normative References

[RFC0821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10,

[RFC0821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10,

RFC 821, August 1982.

RFC 821, August 1982.

[RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet

[RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet

text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

[RFC0974] Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system",

RFC 974, January 1986.

[RFC1521] Borenstein, N. and N. Freed, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet

[RFC1521] Borenstein, N. and N. Freed, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet

Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and

Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and

Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies",

Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies",

RFC 1521, September 1993.

RFC 1521, September 1993.

[RFC1522] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)

[RFC1522] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)

Part Two: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",

Part Two: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",

RFC 1522, September 1993.

RFC 1522, September 1993.

[RFC1651] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.

[RFC1651] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.

skipping to change at page 5, line 9

skipping to change at page 5, line 20

Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message

Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message

Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail

[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail

Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,

Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,

November 1996.

November 1996.

[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,

[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,

April 2001.

April 2001.

[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,

[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax

October 2008.

Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,

[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,

October 2008.

October 2008.

Author's Address

Author's Address

D. Crocker (editor)

D. Crocker (editor)

Brandenburg InternetWorking

Brandenburg InternetWorking

675 Spruce Dr.

675 Spruce Dr.

Sunnyvale, CA

Sunnyvale, CA

USA

USA

End of changes. 11 change blocks.

25 lines changed or deleted

36 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37b. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:01:49 +0000

> Diffs from the -00 version are attached.

Dave,
I believe there are a couple of errors in your latest version:

Why do we need to retain the reference to RFC 1521?

This reference is not used anywhere in the document as far as I can see, so it should be deleted altogether.