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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 17 December 2014 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B931A8A3F; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:57:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HRdGvjJyg5K; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A4061A8A1B; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:57:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2548; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418821034; x=1420030634; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LAiddUrnKD9oGItyKaDndF4cuOyo3rx+tzvMRDf4ats=; b=YuX25hfmlOLO6ch+ijNhLGc7fHjkBwU5OxK7kGi9oD8mn7oZpsSf2rK9 /R6QCCaT42JrCGhVbbKZmhGWygnb/8dVGSEiE9I4pspANzpfGwYN9q2dU yIO74P2XnNYuyNeNdXiMlJgWmVM8+2KYb5owKVaIq1/oPcDyJRSIa84AE g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArMEADR9kVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABag1hYvEOJNYVwAoE3AQEBAQF9hA0BAQQ4NgoBEAsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEHAQEFiCMN1CABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXjxARAVAHhCkBBIUljCGFMoELMIIxghCLRCKCMIE9PTEBgQuBNwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,593,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="278249533"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2014 12:57:12 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBHCvCIr005151; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:57:12 GMT
Message-ID: <54917DA8.1000408@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:57:12 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 <brian@innovationslab.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20141215135427.19775.86669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <549152F9.7070307@cisco.com> <54917AC4.6040401@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <54917AC4.6040401@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eman/Zj3KH2hT6w3ZrNPZV8PFyujNumM
Cc: draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement.all@ietf.org, eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eman] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group <eman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/>
List-Post: <mailto:eman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:57:16 -0000

On 17/12/2014 13:44, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> On 12/17/14 4:55 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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,
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3, 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.
> So, if you want to call it an Applicability Statement, the Last Call
> will need to be run again at the higher standards level.
Understood. This is Joel's decision, as the responsible AD.

Regards, B.
>
>>> 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.
> See above.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>