Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 12 May 2011 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 1A2C8E06D5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.492, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 bx11MQqUfZZD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53935E06A1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A985B806D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= cryptonector.com; b=scBogi1nS62u8Z16YVrb60+FUWRsk2pwkhgwPhUyQscV Qx9H9yj1QUm4Y5ihjjSdlq8svL5m/gN3Vr9seo36hWY8PVZzIOrXvZbBcEUgmkGH z5IbOwWKhoPj3KUmqNhEc9F+Efx/9WHNYbTlJnMqMqMuONlqrgN1LOeZyQmkU3A=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=/dUjOjUOcaGrteVdt/QwmwJhyOA=; b=RNBbaC198Su Fc2Ftmfl1SuNl4kqMks//K93yRB+2bWEyyTgEeSETafFegnsYk6KTWqU0F+8nemq gUWeDWoAVMlhQKNlOvOHbWe9scXPhPeAUmUeh3yxIOdv5XhJCvM/GXPdJeSfdpTl v+60MvNQmDWMD/gNfDOu+pQljcJKXtzM=
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a26.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1C3EB806B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so1597093vws.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.175.99 with SMTP id bz3mr757540vdc.117.1305225254404; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.155.4 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DCC2250.8080603@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>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:34:14 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTimJuVwFXYmb+nSd35PPwAtp=fu1dw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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 18:34:16 -0000

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
--