Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:16:15 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages
	Author(s)       : Murray S. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2011-10-18

   The multipart/report Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
   media type is a general &quot;family&quot; or &quot;container&quot; type for electronic
   mail reports of any kind.  Although this memo defines only the use of
   the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status
   reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media type
   is used for all kinds of reports.

   This memo obsoletes RFC3462.  The IESG is also requested to mark
   RFC1892 and RFC3462 as &quot;historic&quot;.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:08:39 +0300

Murray,

Are you going to incorporate my feedback
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html)?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

2011/10/18, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working
> Group Working Group of the IETF.
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:45:30 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:09 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt
> 

That's really a question for the IESG now as Last Call closed a week ago.  But if you look at the evaluation record, you'll see that it's already under discussion as to whether the document will be published as an Internet Standard, since Draft Standard doesn't exist anymore.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:15 -0700 (PDT)

> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html)?

Speaking only for myself, I didn't find any of these suggested changes to be at
all compelling. In particular, I find the FOO [FOO] thing more troublesome than
helpful. I also don't care in the slightest about matching some sort of New
Abstract style. And finally, the applicability of the two maturity level stuff
to this effort is for the IESG to sort out.

				Ned

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:39:42 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ned Freed
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:32 AM
> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Cc: [email-masked]

Concur on all points.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:54:58 -0500

On 10/19/11 1:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html
>>>        
>> ...the applicability of the two maturity level stuff to this effort is for the IESG to sort out.
>>      
> Concur on all points.
>    

The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new "Internet 
Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. I 
will initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the WG. 
If I do hear such yelps, you had better give me an argument to bring 
back to the IESG that I can defend.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:08:51 -0700 (PDT)

> will initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the WG.

Go for it!

There are a fair number of documents I think we'll be able to progress given
only two maturity levels. But given this is a new process, it would be much
better if the first document was one that was being processed for another,
preferably minor, reason. This document seems like the perfect candidate.

				Ned

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:48:12 -0400

--On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:08 -0700 Ned Freed
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new
>> "Internet Standard" designation. That means running a new,
>> 4-week, last call. I will initiate that tomorrow unless I
>> hear yelps of horror from the WG.
> 
> Go for it!
> 

+1

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:44:31 -0400

> Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. I will
> initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the WG. If I do
> hear such yelps, you had better give me an argument to bring back to the
> IESG that I can defend.

I am mildly annoyed that this wasn't anticipated in the first last
call, and that we didn't just extend the last call for two weeks to
accommodate this, since RFC 6410 wasn't published when this doc was
processed before.  That said, this is a transition issue, and, as far
as I can tell, this is the *only* document that's affected.  And a
four-week delay in moving this forward will do no harm whatsoever.  I
agree with Russ's assessment that it's not a good idea to try to make
the first application of 6410 be an exception.

So, yes, let's do another four-week last call just on this point, and
then get this out as the first upgrade to Internet Standard.

Barry, document shepherd

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:34:54 -0700

At 09:54 25-10-2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
>Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. 
>I will initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the 
>WG. If I do hear such yelps, you had better give me an argument to 
>bring back to the IESG that I can defend.

I am not opposed to the above.

What happens to the RFC 5337 update?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:09:01 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:48 PM
> To: Ned Freed; Pete Resnick
> >[...]

What they said.