Preliminary Evaluation of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]", for advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working Group
draft-ietf-yam-pre-evaluation-template-01

Abstract

This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]" for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It has been prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working Group.

THIS INTERNET DRAFT IS NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN RFC, BUT IS WRITTEN TO FACILITY PROCESSING WITHIN THE IESG.

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2010.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 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.

1.  Introduction

A preliminary evaluation has been made of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]" by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working Group for advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on this decision.

1.1.  Note to RFC Editor

This Internet-Draft is not meant to be published as an RFC. It is written to facilitate processing within the IESG.

2.  Preliminary Evaluation

2.1.  Document

Title:

[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]

Link:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXX

2.2.  Time in Place

RFC2026:

"A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred."

Published:

[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT DATE HERE]

2.3.  Implementation and Operational Experience

RFC2026:

"significant implementation and successful operational experience ... characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community."

Confidence level:

Very high.

[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

2.4.  Proposed Changes

The YAM WG proposes making the following changes in a revision:

item:

[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

2.5.  Non-Changes

The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes:

1. [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

2.6.  Downward references

At Full Standard, the following references would be downward references:

[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

2.7.  IESG Feedback

The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on this decision. In particular:

• Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a move from Draft to Full Standard?
• Excluding the previous proposed changes and expected IESG support for technically substantive IETF last call feedback, does the IESG believe any additional changes are critical to advance this document from draft to full standard? If so, please provide sufficient information so the WG can address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine that the document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time.
• Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a full standard? If not, please cite which specific downward reference or references are problematic and why so the WG can address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time.

3.  IANA Considerations

This document contains no IANA actions.

4.  Security Considerations

This document requests IESG feedback. There are no security considerations.

5.  References

5.1. Normative References

5.2. Informative References

Author's Address