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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 17 December 2014 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 B05F11A89FA; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:45:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Xme0Ttukk8oG; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B6271A89FE; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5292588136; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A3971C0002; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:44:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54917AC4.6040401@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:44:52 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20141215135427.19775.86669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <549152F9.7070307@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <549152F9.7070307@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H1k9p5TNv4KoctL3VB2RgRAi9bNMGiuiK"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eman/kn6vlxynDdqjtmWLpNxRInf1FNI
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 12:45:02 -0000

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.

> 
>> 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