Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 5/12/11 1:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Pete Resnick<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> There are oodles of RFCs that are ASs. They are all (AFAICT) labeled as BCPs.
>>      
> That is facile, but it lacks rough consensus.  It eve lacks a clear statement of basis.
>    

If you are talking about the first sentence, your statement is clearly 
false. As I said in my first message, there are a list of things that 
2026 envisions as ASs:

     "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"

I'm happy to point out many of the above types of documents ("oodles" if 
you prefer) that are currently published as BCPs.

If you're complaint is with the second sentence (that as far as I can 
tell all of these ASs are labeled as BCPs), well, I concede the point. 
I'm sure there are Informational documents that are of the above 
categories. And parts of standards track documents. But there are an 
awful lot of these that are published as BCPs, and it is docs of that 
type (AS intended status: BCP) that I wish to put on the standards track.

>> 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.
>>      
> how long do we have to wait for a spec to be unused, before being able to calling it a failure?
>    

Well, now you've changed horses. Are we talking about the experiment 
failing or are we talking about a spec being a failure? Again, I'm happy 
to concede that section 3.2 and 3.3 of 2026 have not been implemented. 
The reasons it hasn't been implemented are debatable. I've mentioned 
ambiguity. There are actually a couple of weird contradictions in 2026 
around this topic. But I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or 
not it's a good idea to try to put certain kinds of documents on the 
standards track.

> failure to garner interest is a failure.
>    

Well, if that is one of the criteria, then I'd say that a half dozen 
people on this list actually *expressing* "interest" (with reasons) and 
the IESG being "interested" is a good initial sign. But the failure of 
one document to garner interest is not itself evidence that the idea is 
of interest. Now I've got a little prima facia evidence that there is 
some interest in my expression of this idea. I'm happy enough with that.

> while it might be quibbling about versions, AS docs HAVE been tried,  The community never got comfonrtable with their purpose or form.
>    

Uh, now who's making statements without a clear basis?

There is no doubt that there were AS documents prior to 2026 (1122 and 
1123 being good examples). There is no doubt that there are plenty of 
documents that fit the definitions of a 2026 AS that I quoted above 
(with many of them being published as BCP). You can't be arguing that 
the community never got comfortable with the purpose or form of ASs, as 
they demonstrably have, unless you're arguing that they never got 
comfortable with the purpose or form of standards track ASs. I'd like to 
hear some evidence for that conclusion, because I've seen scant few 
examples of the latter. Otherwise, you're simply saying that the 
community never got comfortable with broccoli instead of cookies at 
meeting breaks, and that's either equivocation or false.

(For the record, so far, I have Dave "in the rough" on this topic.)

pr

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