76, Ylang Ylang Avenue Quatre Bornes Mauritius sm+ietf@elandsys.com

Applications YAM Working Group SMTP RFC XXXXter 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.

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.

This Internet-Draft is not meant to be published as an RFC. It is written to facilitate processing within the IESG.

[PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TITLE HERE] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXX

"A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred." [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT DATE HERE]

"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." Very high. [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

The YAM WG proposes making the following changes in a revision: [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes: [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

At Full Standard, the following references would be downward references: [PLACEHOLDER: INSERT TEXT HERE]

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.

This document contains no IANA actions.

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.