Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 17 July 2012 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288CC11E80AD; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aaz34PNAa2Kf; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D24411E80A0; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1SrFxC-000D8g-M5; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:09:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:14:32 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
Message-ID: <CFDBFE9825F3FE036F1B296D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <5005B58F.40608@qualcomm.com>
References: <4FF2E47C.80104@isode.com> <2D34DBB5-543F-47A3-A649-BDDFF76A6438@netapp.com> <5005B58F.40608@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:14:12 -0000

--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote:

> Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
> document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
> requirements document in the sense that it is laying out
> requirements for future protocol documents being developed by
> a WG; it is a consensus document listing the requirements for
> the operation and administration of a type of device. If that
> doesn't fall within the 2nd paragraph of RFC 2026 section 5, I
> don't know what does.

Just to be disagreeable...

I think "requirements for the operation and administration of a
type of device" puts it squarely into the "Applicability
Statement" range, in part of permit testing of those
requirements and advancement along the standards track.  Of
course, the precedent is RFCs 1122 and 1123 which requirements
for operation and administration as well as for protocol
conformance and are clearly applicability statements (and more
or less the prototype for that category).

    john