YAM Working Group | S.M. Moonesamy, Ed. |
Internet-Draft | December 22, 2010 |
Intended status: Informational | |
Expires: June 25, 2011 |
Preliminary Evaluation of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]", for advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working Group
draft-ietf-yam-pre-evaluation-template-04
Abstract
This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]" for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It 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 WRITTEN TO FACILITATE PROCESSING WITHIN THE IESG.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 25, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1. Note to RFC Editor
- 2. Preliminary Evaluation
- 2.1. Document
- 2.2. Time in Place
- 2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience
- 2.4. Proposed Changes
- 2.5. Non-Changes
- 2.6. Downward references
- 2.7. IESG Feedback
- 3. IANA Considerations
- 4. Security Considerations
- 5. References
- 5.1. Normative References
- 5.2. Informative References
- Author's Address
1. Introduction
A preliminary evaluation has been made of RFC XXX "[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]" by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working Group for advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on this decision.
1.1. Note to RFC Editor
This Internet-Draft is not meant to be published as an RFC. It is written to facilitate processing within the IESG.
2. Preliminary Evaluation
2.1. Document
- Title:
- [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE]
- Link:
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXX
2.2. Time in Place
- RFC2026:
- "A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred."
- Published:
- [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT DATE HERE]
2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience
- RFC2026:
- "significant implementation and successful operational experience ... characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community."
- Confidence level:
- Very high.
[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]
2.4. Proposed Changes
The YAM WG proposes making the following changes in a revision:
- item:
- [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]
2.5. Non-Changes
The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes:
- [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]
2.6. Downward references
At Full Standard, the following references would be downward references:
- [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]
2.7. IESG Feedback
The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on this decision. In particular:
- Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a move from Draft to Full Standard?
- Excluding the previous proposed changes and expected IESG support for technically substantive IETF last call feedback, does the IESG believe any additional changes are critical to advance this document from draft to full standard? If so, please provide sufficient information so the WG can address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine that the document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time.
- Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a full standard? If not, please cite which specific downward reference or references are problematic and why so the WG can address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time.
3. IANA Considerations
This document contains no IANA actions.
4. Security Considerations
This document requests IESG feedback and does not raise any security concerns. Security considerations for RFC XXX have been taken into account during the preliminary evaluation and appear in either Section 2.4 or Section 2.5 of this document.