[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony at att.com>
Cc: Yet Another Mail Working Group <yam at ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:36:47 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:14:41 -0500" <4B09FE21.6080104 at att.com>
References: <4B09FE21.6080104 at att.com>

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?

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

Ned

References:
- [yam] meta question on draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-eval
  - From: Tony Hansen

Prev by Date: Re: [yam] Looking for implementations of RFC 3848 (ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration)
Next by Date: [yam] typo in draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-01
Previous by thread: Re: [yam] meta question on draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-eval
Next by thread: [yam] Looking for implementations of RFC 3848 (ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.