< draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-01.txt		draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-02.txt >
	YAM Working Group J. Klensin		YAM Working Group J. Klensin
	Internet-Draft		Internet-Draft
	Intended status: Informational B. Leiba		Intended status: Informational B. Leiba
	Expires: May 17, 2010 Huawei Technologies		Expires: July 25, 2010 Huawei Technologies
	November 13, 2009		January 21, 2010
	Preliminary Evaluation of RFC5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP),		Preliminary Evaluation of RFC5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP),
	for advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working		for advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working
	Group		Group
	draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-01.txt		draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-02.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC 5321, Simple Mail		This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC 5321, Simple Mail
	Transfer Protocol for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It		Transfer Protocol for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It
	has been prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working Group.		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		THIS INTERNET DRAFT IS NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN RFC, BUT IS
	WRITTEN TO FACILITATE DISCUSSION WITH THE IESG.		WRITTEN TO FACILITATE DISCUSSION WITH THE IESG.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 44 ¶
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2010.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 25, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 24 ¶
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Note to RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Note to RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Preliminary Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Preliminary Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Time in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Time in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience . . . . . . . . . 3		2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.4. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.4. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.5. Non-Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.5. Non-Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.6. Downward references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.6. Downward references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.7. IESG Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.7. IESG Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	A.1. Changes from version -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		A.1. Changes from version -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		A.2. Changes from version -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	A preliminary evaluation has been made of Simple Mail Tranfer		A preliminary evaluation has been made of Simple Mail Tranfer
	Protocol [RFC5321] by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working Group for		Protocol [RFC5321] by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working Group for
	advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG requests		advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG requests
	feedback from the IESG on this decision.		feedback from the IESG on this decision.
	1.1. Note to RFC Editor		1.1. Note to RFC Editor
	skipping to change at page 4, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 39 ¶
	suggestions were made about how to make metalanguage productions		suggestions were made about how to make metalanguage productions
	easier to find and connect. A complete rewrite or restructuring		easier to find and connect. A complete rewrite or restructuring
	of the metalanguage should be avoided on the grounds that it would		of the metalanguage should be avoided on the grounds that it would
	carry a very high risk of introducing errors. Instead, resources		carry a very high risk of introducing errors. Instead, resources
	and tools permitting (significant manual work is now required),		and tools permitting (significant manual work is now required),
	the revised document will contain an index to productions and		the revised document will contain an index to productions and
	where they are defined.		where they are defined.
	Normative References: RFC 5321 is worded in a way that makes some		Normative References: RFC 5321 is worded in a way that makes some
	references normative that are not strictly required to be. The WG		references normative that are not strictly required to be. The WG
	will consider whether those rewordings are appropriate.		will consider whether those rewordings are appropriate. In
			particular, the reference to RFC 821 will be moved to Informative
			because all normative uses have been removed.
			Existing Errata Reports: The working group will incorporate
			corrections to accepted errata, as shown in the RFC Editor's
			errata tool. Errata ID 1683 is currently the only such item. IDs
			1543 and 1851 are reported, but unverified; the working group will
			consider those.
			Small Editorial Errors: Clear up various small editorial errors,
			e.g., the use of "SHOULD not" in one location. YAM issue tracker
			issues 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13 refer to issues of this sort. The
			working group will add others that may be identified in its
			detailed review.
			Clarifications: The working group will attempt to address things
			that have ben identified as unclear in RFC 5321. YAM issue
			tracker issues 7, 8, 10, and 11 refer to issues of this sort.
			There has been discussion of these on the mailing list, and the
			resolutions of each may or may not result in a change in the
			document. In no case will clarification changes be significant
			enough to violate "Non-Changes", Section 2.5.
	2.5. Non-Changes		2.5. Non-Changes
	The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes:		The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes:
	1. Complete revision, rearrangement, or reformatting of metalanguage		1. Complete revision, rearrangement, or reformatting of metalanguage
	(see #2 above).		(see #2 above).
	2. Any extensions that would violate the rules for Full Standard or		2. Any extensions that would violate the rules for Full Standard or
	otherwise require revisiting the approved interoperability report		otherwise require revisiting the approved interoperability report
	skipping to change at page 5, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 44 ¶
	case, the authors were advised to prepare a specific Internet-		case, the authors were advised to prepare a specific Internet-
	Draft describing the change, convince the community to progress		Draft describing the change, convince the community to progress
	it to Proposed Standard, and then implement and deploy the change		it to Proposed Standard, and then implement and deploy the change
	quickly enough to "catch up" with the progress that started with		quickly enough to "catch up" with the progress that started with
	RFC 2821. The notion was that those changes could then be		RFC 2821. The notion was that those changes could then be
	integrated with the progression at the same maturity level. It		integrated with the progression at the same maturity level. It
	is important to note that, independent of any constraints imposed		is important to note that, independent of any constraints imposed
	by the YAM charter design, none of those proposals have appeared		by the YAM charter design, none of those proposals have appeared
	and been progressed even to IETF Last Call.		and been progressed even to IETF Last Call.
	4. The Security Considerations section was extensively reviewed last		4. As agreed when RFC 5321 was reviewed, the examples will not be
			revised to bring them into alignment with RFC 2606 (BCP 32)
			conventions (example.com, etc.). The issues are explained in
			Section 1.3 of RFC 5321. The community also noted at the time
			that the relevant examples have been in use, substantially
			unchanged, for more than a quarter-century with no serious claims
			of confusion or other harm being caused.
			5. The Security Considerations section was extensively reviewed last
	year (during the review and approval of RFC 5321). No evidence		year (during the review and approval of RFC 5321). No evidence
	has appeared since then that would require further review or		has appeared since then that would require further review or
	additional changes.		additional changes.
	2.6. Downward references		2.6. Downward references
	At Full Standard, the following references would be downward		At Full Standard, the following references would be downward
	references:		references:
	RFC 5322 if 5322bis is not progressed simultaneously with 5321bis.		RFC 5322 if 5322bis is not progressed simultaneously with 5321bis.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶
	reference or references are problematic and why so the WG can		reference or references are problematic and why so the WG can
	address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the		address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the
	document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time.		document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time.
	3. IANA Considerations		3. IANA Considerations
	This document contains no IANA actions.		This document contains no IANA actions.
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	This document requests IESG feedback. There are no security		This document requests IESG feedback and does not raise any security
	considerations.		concerns. Security considerations for RFC 5321 have been taken into
			account during the preliminary evaluation and appear in either
			Section 2.4 or Section 2.5 of this document.
	5. Acknowledgments		5. Acknowledgments
	This document was prepared from a template supplied by Subramanian		This document was prepared from a template supplied by Subramanian
	Moonesamy.		Moonesamy.
	Some of the information provided in this document, but not provided		Some of the information provided in this document, but not provided
	in the RFC 1652 evaluation (http://www.ietf.org/id/		in the RFC 1652 evaluation (http://www.ietf.org/id/
	draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt), was inspired by		draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt), was inspired by
	brief discussions with Pasi Eronen and Subramanian Moonesamy during		brief discussions with Pasi Eronen and Subramanian Moonesamy during
	skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 44 ¶
	[RFC1869] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.		[RFC1869] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
	Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869,		Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869,
	November 1995.		November 1995.
	[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,		[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
	April 2001.		April 2001.
	Appendix A. Change Log		Appendix A. Change Log
	A.1. Changes from version -00 to -01		A.1. Changes from version -01 to -02
	o Added Security Considerations to the "no change" list in		o Added classes of changes for "errata" and "clarifications".
	Section 2.5.
			o Included YAM issue tracker numbers in the lists of possible
			changes.
			A.2. Changes from version -00 to -01
			o Added Security Considerations and Examples to the "no change" list
			in Section 2.5.
			o Identified RFC 821 as a specific reference to be moved from
			Normative to Informative.
			o Add blanket placeholder for changes due to small editorial errors.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	John C Klensin		John C Klensin
	1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322		1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322
	Cambridge, MA 02140		Cambridge, MA 02140
	USA		USA
	Phone: +1 617 245 1457		Phone: +1 617 245 1457
	Email: john+ietf@jck.com		Email: john+ietf@jck.com
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	22 lines changed or deleted		67 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/