Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 5/12/11 12:34 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Dave CROCKER<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>    
>> AS is a failed experiment.  The failure was complete and not a matter of
>> opinion.
>>      
> Given that we never issue any anymore, I agree.  Heck, I was never
> even aware of ASes as a document type.
>    

So I would not characterize this as a "failed" experiment. I would 
characterize it as an "unimplemented" experiment. To wit: If I say, 
"Gee, it think it would be very beneficial if we substituted broccoli 
for the cookies during IETF meeting breaks; I propose that we run an 
experiment to put out broccoli and see if it is beneficial" and the 
secretariat (because they are wise folks) don't ever try putting out 
broccoli instead of cookies, I would not say that the broccoli 
experiment "failed". It was never tried. Who knows...it might have been 
successful if tried.

Nobody ever really tried what was described in 2026. For whatever reason 
(I think mostly because 2026 was ambiguous), people started publishing 
the types of documents we are talking about as BCPs instead of 
standards-track BCPs. I am simply suggesting that we actually *start* 
the experiment that 2026 envisions: Separate out certain kinds of 
documents we've to date been labeling as BCPs and make put them into the 
standards-track as AS.

> Are there any RFCs that are ASes?

There are oodles of RFCs that are ASs. They are all (AFAICT) labeled as 
BCPs. The experiment is really not introducing ASs per se. The 
experiment is to put them on the standards track and call them out as 
2026 AS documents.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the experiment failed. That's not a 
matter of opinion.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]