IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Applicability Statements

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 12 May 2011 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 E001CE07C2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 lpRE1lLjfnN5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACBFE07C0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4CG04qH013876 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4DCC03FD.3070608@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:59:57 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <4DCAC1CB.3050905@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DCAC1CB.3050905@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: 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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 16:00:18 -0000

On 5/11/2011 10:05 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> There is a way to deal with these sorts of documents that we haven't tried in a
> very long time:
...
>   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.


AS is a failed experiment.  The failure was complete and not a matter of opinion.

If you want to repeat it, you need to change the conditions, and explain how 
those changes are likely to make it succeed this time.

I'm not stating an opinion about whether I think the construct is good or bad, 
or whether it's worth conducting the experiment, but of the need to specify the 
details that give sufficient guidance and make it (more) likely that the label 
will be useful this time.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email