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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

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