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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 17 December 2014 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 DB2021A1A42; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:52:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 FOjsaswix6ec; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B79EA1A1B89; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mbp.local ([IPv6:2601:9:7681:2d01:4897:9f29:74ea:535a]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBHFptc4025511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:51:56 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <5491A69A.30502@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:51:54 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, 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> <54917DA8.1000408@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54917DA8.1000408@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ocK2mRas3H5vbA3AN9o0R8DDM9Fi32KTI"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eman/ivxT0ye-K713TO_2k2r_wkXncX4
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 15:52:09 -0000

On 12/17/14 4:57 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> On 17/12/2014 13:44, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Hi Benoit,
>>
>> On 12/17/14 4:55 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

So, this would give us another chance to run at the text I suppose
before reviewing it.

I am fine with that.

joel
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eman mailing list
> eman@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>