IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Tue, 17 July 2012 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.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 9871B21F86A5; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 HNzoojX+JSig; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94A721F86A3; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1342551445; x=1374087445; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=CzBtcgrpO154KuRXElj/az6LterkvxgvWMfez6/zo4A=; b=VWfRkUjipRmDBhs6usOD8P29TuVaLnr3C5MKKuBkrNWvVojORftsGtZF Y+ktjpEQaSCj/bf+eUpwQow0eLzZ4IeqIgERdWc7njUgxFm6AwqP0miwn WUABCkdr6oOySIUoUW2N6bIDq1g0FUZauhDjqUWxgPVIoPLEkFOlowJNT 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6775"; a="209235368"
Received: from ironmsg02-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.16]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2012 11:57:23 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,604,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="121763451"
Received: from nasanexhc10.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.3]) by ironmsg02-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 17 Jul 2012 11:57:22 -0700
Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) by nasanexhc10.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:57:21 -0700
Received: from Macintosh-5.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:57:21 -0700
Message-ID: <5005B58F.40608@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:57:19 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
References: <4FF2E47C.80104@isode.com> <2D34DBB5-543F-47A3-A649-BDDFF76A6438@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D34DBB5-543F-47A3-A649-BDDFF76A6438@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
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 18:56:36 -0000

On 7/3/12 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>    
>> I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am sure
>> you can sort the right status out with IESG.
>>      
> +1
>
> I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status.
>
> Lars

Publicly reposting what I just put in my IESG ballot, just in case you 
all want to disagree with me publicly. :-)

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.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email