Subject: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:50:09 -0800

Hello,

As the YAM WG supports the change in the security considerations 
section, the revised Section 5 will be as follows:

  "This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not is not believed to
   raise any security issues not already endemic in electronic mail and
   present in fully conforming implementations of [RFC5321], including
   attacks facilitated by the presence of an option negotiation mechanism.

   Since MIME semantics are transport neutral the 8bitMIME option
   provides no added capability to disseminate malware than is provided
   by unextended 7bit SMTP."

There is a mistake in the numbering of Section 6 as Acknowledgements 
does not belong in the IANA Section (noted by Amanda Baber).

A revised I-D is not needed.  These two changes will be made through 
a RFC Editor note if the IESG approves draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03.

There is also a non-blocking comment from Lars Eggert, Area Director, 
about the example domains.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:58:02 +0000

The document was approved by IESG today. My scars are beginning to heal...

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:54:53 -0800

>The document was approved by IESG today. My scars are beginning to heal...

The status for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 is "Do not 
publish".  This is not an issue as the document has been approved by the IESG.

As an individual comment, I'll say that I am relieved that the 
Hiroshima option was not exercised.  It is left to the appreciation 
of the reader to see whether it is a reference to the last meeting. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:57:44 +0000

S Moonesamy wrote:

> The status for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 is "Do not publish".  This 
> is not an issue as the document has been approved by the IESG.

You are confused. This is the status of the pre-evaluation document.

> Hiroshima option was not exercised.  It is left to the appreciation of 
> the reader to see whether it is a reference to the last meeting. :-)

Me too.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:22:39 -0800

>You are confused. This is the status of the pre-evaluation document.

I most certainly am confused. :-)

Thanks for getting RFC 1652bis through the process.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy