Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,
At 10:05 11-05-2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
>There is a way to deal with these sorts of documents that we haven't 
>tried in a very long time: RFC 2026 defines two kinds of standards 
>track documents: Technical Specifications (TS), which we publish all 
>of the time, and Applicability Statements (AS), which we haven't. 
>According to 2026, an AS can be any of the following:
>
>     "identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 
> are to be combined"
>     "specify particular values or ranges of TS parameters or 
> subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be implemented"
>     "specifies the circumstances in which the use of a particular 
> TS is required, recommended, or elective"
>     "describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted 
> 'domain of applicability'"
>     "comprehensive conformance specification"
>
>That sounds to me like exactly what we're trying to do. And an AS 
>can be standards track, so long as it is at the same or lower 
>maturity level than any of the TSs it references, so it can get full 
>standards track treatment.
>
>So, here's my proposal, which I've already gotten some positive 
>feedback from the chairs of WGs that I cover in the apps area, and 
>which the IESG has agreed to go along with: For my WGs in the apps 
>area, we're going to try an informal experiment and submit documents 
>like the above to the IESG for Proposed Standard AS. (I already have 
>two such documents in mind: The potential MARF "BCP" and the the 
>Malformed Header document.) Other ADs may join in, but I'll at least 
>start the ball rolling. I'll try to get some early feedback from 
>IESG folks as we get some I-Ds together to sanity check, and with 
>any luck we'll get a few of these published as Proposed Standard. 
>Then the IESG can talk about the criteria for advancement. However 
>it works out, the worst case will be that we back off and publish 
>these things as BCP or Informational instead, but I'm hopeful. After 
>we get some experience, we'll see where else the use of AS might make sense.

This is like two ADs and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. :-)

I like the idea on the grounds that BCP has more value if it 
documents best (existing) current practices instead of what we 
believe should be best practice.  RFC 4130 is an example of what is 
discussed above.

Regards,
-sm