Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

Marc

I do not believe the applicability statement is necessary, regardless 
of how well or poor it is written.  The scope of this effort is clear 
- in the IETF community - and this is not an industry view of 
applicability, which is how I believe some are reacting as if it were.

Were this applicability to remain, then every IETF ID and RFC would 
require one, as I know of no situation in which any communication is 
ever entirely comprised of IETF technologies (i.e., every 
communication has a layer 2 - which the IETF has no charge of - or is 
contained entirely within the same physical entity, in which it is 
rare that maintaining standards based protocols are necessary). There 
may be corner cases that I'm not thinking about - but I believe this 
is generally true.

Therefore, I hum *no* to add this applicability statement.

James

At 01:23 PM 4/24/2009, Marc Linsner wrote:
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-09.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-09.txt 
>
>
>At the San Francisco meeting and ensuing list threads, the last 
>issue around PhoneBCP was whether or not to include an 
>'applicability statement'.  The hum during the meeting was 
>inconclusive.  The draft editor has included text in this latest 
>version in an attempt to compromise on this issue.
>
>Please review this version and respond by Friday May 1 to the list 
>as to your acceptance of this change.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Marc, Hannes, & Roger
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit