Skip to main content

Yet Another Mail

Document Charter Yet Another Mail WG (yam) Snapshot
Title Yet Another Mail
Last updated 2011-11-28
State Approved
WG State Concluded
IESG Responsible AD Pete Resnick
Charter edit AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

The Yet Another Mail (YAM) WG will revise existing Internet Mail
  specifications currently at Draft Standard to advance them to Full
  Standard. YAM will focus strictly on advancing email-related
  specifications for which the community already has some years of
  experience with deployment and interoperability. Its function is not to
  reopen or reconsider protocols - if a specification is found to need
  significant technical work, YAM will remove it from the WG's agenda.
  This charter's scope of work is the set of email-related RFCs that are
  currently at Draft Standard. Each document will be examined, along with
  its errata, and a recommendation made as to whether it is suitable for
  advancement to Full Standard. If it is not, the WG may recommend
  whether it should be republished at Draft Standard, moved to Historic,
  or recycled to Proposed Standard. However, any actual work to
  facilitate publication of a document at other than Full Standard is
  outside the WG's scope. If the WG cannot quickly reach consensus about
  further work on a document, it will drop the documents from its agenda
  without further comment or effort.
  The purpose of this working group is to work on protocols that are
  already recognized as effectively full standards, improving their
  written specifications to align with that status. The working group does
  not intend to revise the actual protocols in any way and will avoid
  document changes that might even accidentally introduce protocol
  changes, destabilize a protocol, or introduce semantic or syntactic
  In particular, it will avoid adding new document sections that were not
  previously required and making BNF grammar changes that didn't originate
  from interoperability problems or difficulties in comprehension by
  If an existing protocol implementation is conforming to the Draft Standard
  version of the protocol specification, it must also be conforming to the
  resulting Full Standard version. Hence, specification changes that
  create a violation of this requirement are out of scope of the working
  group charter.
  On a case by case basis, substantive changes may be considered, if they
  will modify text to match existing conforming implementations -- that
  is, implementations that are already deployed with significant use.
  Specifically, such changes will be permitted to relax requirements or
  to fix BNF bugs where the intent is and has been clear. The WG will
  consult with the IESG about proposed changes before it starts working
  on them. Once the document is done by the WG, approval proceeds
  using the normal IETF approval process. The two step approach is proposed
  in order to save both IESG and WG time and to avoid late surprises
  when a document is considered done by the WG.
  After the tasks of this charter are completed, the WG will consider
  rechartering to move selected mature specifications that are still at
  Proposed Standard to higher maturity levels, or to work on those
  documents previously identified as needing to be republished at Draft
  Standard or Proposed Standard.
  The underpinnings of this WG effort are:
  (1) Wide deployment and use of interoperable implementations of an
  existing standards-track protocol demonstrates a presumption that the
  existing specification is adequate. The burden of demonstrating the
  contrary lies with those who believe that they see significant technical
  or documentation defects.
  (2) It is generally in the best interest of the IETF and the Internet
  community to see specifications of mature protocols advance on the
  standards track, eliminating any uncertainty as to whether the protocols
  have been adequately understood and tested. To that end, YAM will avoid
  modification of documents simply to adjust them to match contemporary
  IETF notational or linguistic norms.
  Obviously, updating of references, boilerplate, and the equivalent are
  exceptions to this, but success in the WG requires that there be a
  good-faith commitment by both its participants and the IESG to avoid
  seeking changes that (a) do not contribute in a substantial and
  substantive way to the quality and comprehensibility of the
  specification, or that (b) force a change to the existing protocol.
  The steps to be followed by the WG are, approximately:
  o The WG will start work by analyzing the following email related
  documents which are currently Draft Standards,
  removing any that have significant technical defects or whose advancement
  may be controversial under the advancement criteria specified in RFC 2026:
  RFC 1864 Content-MD5
  RFC 2045, 2046, 2047, 2049 MIME base specs
  RFC 3282 Content-language
  RFC 3461 DSNs
  RFC 3462 Multipart/Report
  RFC 3463 Enhanced Status Codes
  RFC 3464 Message Format for DSNs
  RFC 3798 Message Disposition Notification
  RFC 4409 Message Submission
  RFC 5321 SMTP
  RFC 5322 Internet Message Format
  o Form review and editing teams for each document to be advanced.
  o Formulate a list of proposed changes (stated in general terms,
  rather than specific wording).
  o Obtain WG consensus and consult with IESG on these changes.
  o Post I-Ds for WG consideration and consensus formation.
  o Recommend resulting documents to IESG for publication processing.
  o Rinse and repeat.