IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Fri, 13 May 2011 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 D4D6DE06D5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 01:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 hslET2+HIqxU for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 01:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.20.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6035E06B7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 01:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host217-43-155-221.range217-43.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([217.43.155.221]) by c2bthomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id CWM08336; Fri, 13 May 2011 09:04:58 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <00ce01cc113b$df5a9520$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <4DCAC1CB.3050905@qualcomm.com> <4DCC03FD.3070608@dcrocker.net><BANLkTikU79k4iR+rSYXKsXKzhW1w-EKKbg@mail.gmail.com><4DCC20AF.7060206@qualcomm.com><BANLkTik40NmjddOnEQB1C7R1JLjbejmo7Q@mail.gmail.com><4DCC2250.8080603@qualcomm.com> <BANLkTimJuVwFXYmb+nSd35PPwAtp=fu1dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:03:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4DCCE629.00EC, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.5.13.73916:17:7.586, ip=217.43.155.221, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_PATH, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020A.4DCCE62D.00DA, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
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: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:05:07 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nico Williams" <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Pete Resnick" <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Cc: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>; "Apps Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements


> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > On 5/12/11 1:05 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> >>>> Are there any RFCs that are ASes?
> >>>
> >>> There are oodles of RFCs that are ASs. They are all (AFAICT) labeled as
> >>> BCPs. [...]
> >>
> >> Let me rephrase: are there Standards-Track BCPs? [...]
> >
> > Ah. No, in 2026, BCPs cannot be Standards-Track and Standards-Track
> > documents cannot be BCPs. They are mutually exclusive categories.
>
> Let me go back to my original phrasing then: are there any existing
> ASes?  I'm not asking if there's BCPs that should have been ASes.
>
> I note that the RFC-Editor has an index of BCPs, STDs, FYIs, and RFCs,
> but no index of ASes.  I take this to mean that there are no ASes.
>
> Another question: if there are indeed no ASes as such, have there ever
> been any attempts to publish any such?  My guess is the answer is
> "no", in which case the "experiment" hasn't failed -- it hasn't been
> attempted.

Nico

My vade mecum is the RFC-INDEX which lists some 30 Applicability Statements, the
most recent being October 2010.  As has been pointed out, there are many more
appearing as sections of Technical RFC.  There are also areas where an AS is
sadly lacking - MPLS-TP springs to mind.

I find them a commonplace in Routing and Operations, perhaps reflecting
an underlying technical difference, or perhaps reflecting a penchant on the part
of the
ADs and WG chairs.  I think that they are needed early on, when the scope of a
technical solution is expanding rapidly, exploding even, and some bounds are
needed.

Tom Petch

> Nico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email