Re: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: (with DISCUSS)

Benoit Claise <> Wed, 17 December 2014 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EA81A86F4; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:55:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sOroVUTMVehl; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B5791A86F0; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:55:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2127; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418810108; x=1420019708; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H+ZsmIPWxW52skUYTrDXBZsfPVejiu+eP6TY8cUF/Vc=; b=DIAIxunNmKRwxy3HGF7/5be8cOyqhIydxknuihRDsxgXKJXBXywjCoMa b0iPH37k424+P6lXCnPDXUw8wLRkB+c/F5XiJFPMSbQJciKNcmlGpmria eA8+odkPtRx5ll+qvA/0jYtoDNdzUFCFjHyT9uuKkCSE58y4F6hh37Aqi I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,592,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="273353172"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2014 09:55:06 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBH9t5xI024569; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:55:05 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:55:05 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Haberman <>, The IESG <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, eman mailing list <>
Subject: Re: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:55:10 -0000

Hi Brian,

[including the document authors, and the mailing list. An issue with the 
"send-notices-to" has been corrected in the tracker]
See in-line.
> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: Discuss
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I need someone to provide some clarity on this document.  It calls itself
> an applicability statement, but is categorized as Informational.  An IETF
> applicability statement is supposed to be a standards track document.
I was able to track the source of confusion.
 From the charter milestones:
     Jun 2013  Submit Internet draft on Energy Management Applicability 
for publication as Informational RFC

So the authors followed this guideline.
You are right about standards track,, and to be candid, I forgot 
about that RFC 2026. Shame on me, I know :-), since I was the EMAN AD at 
some point in time.

> However, this document reads more like a combination of use cases and
> requirements.  If it is really meant to be an AS, then we need to
> re-start the process and issue a new last call as a standards track
> document.  If it is meant to be more requirements and use cases, the text
> should be updated to stricken the mention of applicability statement
> throughout.
This is the last document in the WG, and its goal is AS, not requirements.
Requirements was RFC 6988.

Regards, Benoit
> .