Subject: Quick questions about DRUMS progress...

From: Pete Loshin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:46:46 -0400

Hello!

I'm working on a book about Internet messaging standards for Wiley
Computer Pubishing, and was hoping list participants could offer some
guidance. Specifically, do you have any guesses as to how the RFC
process is progressing for the DRUMS specifications?

Specifically, I got a message indicating that the Internet Message
Format Standard was up for last call back in February and have since
heard nothing about it. Also, I'm particularly interested in the SMTP
and NNTP specs--is there any sense about how close those are?

Any help you can offer is appreciated. If you've only got a general
feeling about how things are going, or just an informed guess, that
would be a big help. 

Thanks!

warm regards,
-pl

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Loshin         <[email-masked]>       +1 781/646-6318 |
|                                                             |
| _IPv6 Clearly Explained_ Morgan Kaufmann January 1999       |
| _TCP/IP Clearly Explained_ 3rd ed Morgan Kaufmann June 1999 |
|                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 19:32:45 -0400

> Specifically, do you have any guesses as to how the RFC

basically the documents are waiting for the overworked ADs to
review them.  but unless the IESG finds significant problems that
haven't been uncovered so far (fairly unlikely) any changes
requested by IESG are likely to be fairly minor edits or
clarifications.

NNTP is not part of the DRUMS work.  those specs aren't as far along.

Keith Moore

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 1999 21:10:16 -0000

Keith Moore writes:
> review them.

Really? There was a demonstrated lack of consensus on this mailing list
after the most recent ``Last Call'' for smtpupd.

I for one haven't had time to review smtpupd-10. I presume that it has
more new text from Klensin, never seen before by most of the mailing
list participants. I understand why the IESG wants to rush this document
out the door, but I expect the public to be adequately warned first.

---Dan

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 1999 19:33:57 -0400

> after the most recent ``Last Call'' for smtpupd.

The rules on the documents were not that everyone had to stand up and
cheer. The rules were that objections had to have at least five people 
signed on to each. We didn't have that for the overwhelming bulk of
objections.

We've been working on this stuff for how long now?

Perry

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 May 1999 04:16:51 -0000

There were serious problems in smtpupd-09. Klensin's new EHLO syntax, for
example, would have produced interoperability disasters. Klensin's QUIT
requirements violated the demonstrated consensus of DRUMS.

Under the rules stated by the DRUMS chair, smtpupd-09 flunked Last Call.
There hasn't been a Last Call on smtpupd-10.

So why is Keith saying that smtpupd-10 is already in front of the IESG?

---Dan

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:22:42 -0400

> So why is Keith saying that smtpupd-10 is already in front of the IESG?

In fact, smtpupd-10 is not already in front of the IESG.  It's still waiting
for me to review it.

Keith