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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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
>