IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 12 May 2011 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570E1E0723 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sTtojWFAGpFc for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7FEE0718 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QKbIE-000D5S-Kh; Thu, 12 May 2011 15:11:26 -0400
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:11:25 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Message-ID: <896CE22253B47335BBCAF0A0@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin9VMKifEsc5ApuQPkPYLkMnKZ1nQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCAC1CB.3050905@qualcomm.com> <4DCC03FD.3070608@dcrocker.net> <BANLkTikU79k4iR+rSYXKsXKzhW1w-EKKbg@mail.gmail.com> <4DCC20AF.7060206@qualcomm.com> <afc07fa3-8a24-4730-8bd9-dc56447e160d@email.android.com> <BANLkTin9VMKifEsc5ApuQPkPYLkMnKZ1nQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:11:28 -0000

--On Thursday, May 12, 2011 13:46 -0500 Nico Williams
<nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dave Crocker
> <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> while it might be quibbling about versions, AS docs HAVE been
>> tried,  The community never got comfonrtable with their
>> purpose or form.
> 
> Out of curiosity, if nothing else, can you point me an some
> examples? ___

RFCs 1122 and 1123 (or at least large fractions of them)?

Many other documents contain both TS and AS components.  As far
as I know, no one has ever tried to interpret "fall into one of
two categories" (RFC 2026 Section 3) as implying a requirement
for two separate documents unless they were trying to kill a
specification procedurally without addressing its content.  The
language of 2026 seems to make any text that specifies
requirements or conformance part of the AS domain.

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email