Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, May 12, 2011 17:31 +0300 Hannes Tschofenig
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Pete, 
> 
> I do not find this effort useful and see it as a waste of
> time. Sorry to say that.  I believe you should let the
> application area spend more time with relevant technical work
> rather than letting them spend time with process aspects. 

Hi Hannes,

I guess I don't understand your comment.  I didn't understand
Pete to be suggesting the creation of a single new document or
piece of work, only that we stop trying to disguise materials
that some readings of 2026 would classify as Applicability
Statements as BCPs or Information documents, but instead publish
them as AS documents.     If no work is done, then there are no
documents to be published in any category.  If someone says
"publish this as a BCP" and the content is essentially that of
an AS, Pete intends to push back and say "AS instead".  That
isn't extra work or "process aspects".  If something were
published and someone decides it needs updating, revision, or
confirmation, then the effort needs to be made to generate an
updated version: that doesn't change whether the document is a
BCP or an AS either.. the only thing that changes is being clear
to all concerned about what is being done and, as I pointed out
in an earlier note, we get away from the notion than an untried
idea to address a practical, often operational, problem with a
protocol is a "best current practice".

   best,
    john