idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-yam-pre-evaluation-template-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 22, 2010) is 4845 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 YAM Working Group S. Moonesamy, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft December 22, 2010 4 Intended status: Informational 5 Expires: June 25, 2011 7 Preliminary Evaluation of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]", 8 for advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working 9 Group 10 draft-ietf-yam-pre-evaluation-template-04 12 Abstract 14 This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: 15 INSERT TITLE HERE]" for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It 16 has been prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working Group. 18 THIS INTERNET DRAFT IS NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN RFC, BUT IS 19 WRITTEN TO FACILITATE PROCESSING WITHIN THE IESG. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 25, 2011. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 1. Introduction 55 A preliminary evaluation has been made of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: 56 INSERT TITLE HERE]" by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working Group for 57 advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG requests 58 feedback from the IESG on this decision. 60 1.1. Note to RFC Editor 62 This Internet-Draft is not meant to be published as an RFC. It is 63 written to facilitate processing within the IESG. 65 2. Preliminary Evaluation 67 2.1. Document 69 Title: [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE] 71 Link: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXX 73 2.2. Time in Place 75 RFC2026: _"A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level 76 for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting 77 has occurred."_ 79 Published: [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT DATE HERE] 81 2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience 83 RFC2026: _"significant implementation and successful operational 84 experience ... characterized by a high degree of technical 85 maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 86 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 87 community."_ 89 Confidence level: Very high. 91 [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE] 93 2.4. Proposed Changes 95 The YAM WG proposes making the following changes in a revision: 97 item: [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE] 99 2.5. Non-Changes 101 The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes: 103 1. [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE] 105 2.6. Downward references 107 At Full Standard, the following references would be downward 108 references: 110 [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE] 112 2.7. IESG Feedback 114 The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on this decision. In 115 particular: 117 o Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a 118 move from Draft to Full Standard? 120 o Excluding the previous proposed changes and expected IESG support 121 for technically substantive IETF last call feedback, does the IESG 122 believe any additional changes are critical to advance this 123 document from draft to full standard? If so, please provide 124 sufficient information so the WG can address these issues prior to 125 IETF last call or determine that the document is inappropriate for 126 the YAM WG to process at this time. 128 o Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a 129 full standard? If not, please cite which specific downward 130 reference or references are problematic and why so the WG can 131 address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the 132 document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time. 134 3. IANA Considerations 136 This document contains no IANA actions. 138 4. Security Considerations 140 This document requests IESG feedback and does not raise any security 141 concerns. Security considerations for RFC XXX have been taken into 142 account during the preliminary evaluation and appear in either 143 Section 2.4 or Section 2.5 of this document. 145 5. References 147 5.1. Normative References 149 5.2. Informative References 151 Author's Address 153 S. Moonesamy (editor) 154 76, Ylang Ylang Avenue 155 Quatre Bornes 156 Mauritius 158 Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com