Subject: [yam] Publication request for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:03:08 -0700

The Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 is enclosed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG co-chair

Message Submission for Mail
Document Shepherd Write-up for the IESG

1.a.  The Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 is S. Moonesamy.
I have personally reviewed this version of the document and I believe that
this version is reading for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

1.b.  RFC 4409 was reviewed by participants of the YAM WG and a 
pre-evaluation I-D
(draft-ietf-yam-4409bis-submit-pre-evaluation) was generated.  This document
incorporates the changes that was identified during the 
pre-evaluation of RFC 4409
and during reviews by participants of the YAM WG.  I do not have any 
concerns about
the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

1.c.  I do not believe that the document needs more review from a particular or
broader perspective as the specification is well-known to many 
participants in the
YAM WG and there is already significant implementation and successful 
operational
experience.

1.d.  I do not have any specific concerns or issues with this 
document.  I am not
aware of any IPR claims.

1.e.  The WG as a whole understands and agrees to the publication of 
the document.

1.f.  There hasn't been any threat of appeal or any discontent about 
the document.

1.g.  draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 is submitted for publication as 
"Full Standard".

1.h.  RFC 4956, RFC 5321 and RFC 5322 are downward references.  The protocols
that they describe are widely-deployed, interoperable, stable, and successful,
so the references are justified based on RFC 4897.

1.i.  There is an IANA considerations section and it is consistent 
with the body of
the document.  The entry in the SMTP Service Extensions registry for 
RFC 4409 should
be updated to reference this document.  The reference for Submit (RFC 
2476) should be
updated to point to this document.  The registry should be updated to 
reflect the
changed and new entries in Section 7.  The entry in the Service Name 
and Transport
Protocol Port Number Registry for port 587 should be updated to point 
to this document.

1.j. The document does not contain any ABNF rule.

1.k. Document Announcement draft

Technical Summary

This document splits message submission from message relay, allowing each
service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.)
and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server.

Working Group Summary

The YAM WG adopted a two-step approach to move this document to Full Standard.
The first step was a pre-evaluation of the existing specification to identify
changes and non-changes.  The second step was to incorporate the changes into
the document and ensure that any implementation that conforms to the Draft
Standard version of the specification remains compliant with this document.
There was no controversy.  There is consensus to move the specification to
Full Standard.

Document Quality

The document has a high degree of technical maturity.  In the five years since
publication of the Draft Standard and 13 years since publication as Proposed
Standard, the specification has become an integral part of all professional
SMTP software products and is widely supported in Internet Mail operations.
Chris Newman suggested adding Section 5.3 applying shorter timeouts.
John Klensin wrote the text in Section 6.5 which discusses about adjusting
character encodings.

Personnel

S. Moonesamy is the Document Shepherd for this document.  Pete Resnick is the
Responsible Area Director.