These are preliminary reviews of the YAM documents:
RFC-Editor errata: none
no errata dependencies references
Can it be declared Full Standard without a revision? We are not required to submit a revision if there is nothing to revise.
Reviser: N. Freed
RFC-Editor errata: none
minor errata (references)
Reviser: J. Myers
RFC-Editor errata: 1 editorial
minor errata minor wordsmithing
BIG QUESTION: do we update them from 822-BNF to ABNF? If so, does it force recycle at proposed.
Reviser: N. Freed
RFC-Editor errata: 4 technical, 3 editorial
minor errata minor wordsmithing
BIG QUESTION: do we update them from 822-BNF to ABNF? If so, does it force recycle at proposed.
Reviser: N. Freed
RFC-Editor errata: 2 technical
minor errata
BIG QUESTION: do we update them from 822-BNF to ABNF? If so, does it force recycle at proposed.
Reviser: K. Moore
RFC-Editor errata: none
minor errata
Reviser: N. Freed
RFC-Editor errata: none
no known errata
updating references?
Declare it full standard with no revision? (Just have to wait for dependencies.)
RFC-Editor errata: 2 technical
Errata are correct, will need a closer look to decide if a recycle is needed.
Reviser: K. Moore
Note: recycling would affect 3461-4 and 3798
RFC-Editor errata: none
There remain issues with use of these specifications as part of UBE, Virus distribution and mailbombing. This problem is inherent with the internet mail architecture and these specifications contribute to the problem only by making possible the automated processing of the gunk. There is no community consensus to modify these specifications as part of addressing the problem.
Reviser: G. Vaudreuil
Declare it full standard with no revision? (Just have to wait for dependencies.)
RFC-Editor errata: none
There remain issues with use of these specifications as part of UBE, Virus distribution and mailbombing. This problem is inherent with the internet mail architecture and these specifications contribute to the problem only by making possible the automated processing of the gunk. There is no community consensus to modify these specifications as part of addressing the problem.
Reviser: G. Vaudreuil
Declare it full standard with no revision? (Just have to wait for dependencies.)
RFC-Editor errata: none
There remain issues with use of these specifications as part of UBE, Virus distribution and mailbombing. This problem is inherent with the internet mail architecture and these specifications contribute to the problem only by making possible the automated processing of the gunk. There is no community consensus to modify these specifications as part of addressing the problem.
Reviser: G. Vaudreuil
Declare it full standard with no revision? (Just have to wait for dependencies.)
RFC-Editor errata: 2 technical
minor errata
Reviser: T. Hansen, G. Vaudreuil
RFC-Editor errata: 2 editorial
minor errata
updating references
Revisers: R. Gellens, J. Klensin
RFC-editor errata: 2 technical
minor changes due to IESG comments during LC
Reviser: J. Klensin
RFC-editor errata: 1 editorial
ready to go
Reviser: P. Resnick
The content of this page was last updated on 2009-08-10. It was migrated from the old Trac wiki on 2023-01-20.