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

Pete Resnick <> Tue, 17 July 2012 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3E721F8501; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.597
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUZzhoUSG+7l; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A61C11E80A0; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1342565486; x=1374101486; 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=GyeeS6Eah8SMtqGqx8Y/t5zNNvOo9D0K4w28bwoNc84=; b=t5fEmpcQFBxIzCLmO/HnJ1z2oYcZ5RUWWTBOXu92hGqFuUmiTgN6N/5x x+zNLzVMJaG4xaDcUK7Df46vmpkgylxUdr65ndQAbaIKXv0DYuti25uFi 2lg4Is1z/rt73OhbNQyBQGh7DjP7DjU4e3Oj3+RR/lFm45Mm9Gb08iO3H w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6775"; a="211657665"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2012 15:51:25 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,605,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="286244610"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 17 Jul 2012 15:51:25 -0700
Received: from Macintosh-5.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:51:23 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:51:22 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
Cc:, Alexey Melnikov <>,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:50:37 -0000

On 7/17/12 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
> <>  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).

Just to be somewhat agreeable... ;-)

Normally, I would be right with you and say, "This should be on the 
standards track." However, this document is about CGNs. It's about 
things that are almost by definition not nice interoperable players on 
the Internet. They are messy local devices for (albeit large) local 
networks. Indeed, there are many folks who think that horrific plagues 
be visited upon those who deploy CGNs and that they should be dismantled 
as soon as humanly possible, if not before. But in any event, this is 
not really a spec "for hardware and software required for computer 
communication across interconnected networks", but rather is a document 
for "networks operated by a great variety of organizations, with diverse 
goals and rules" to provide "operators and administrators of the 
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations". Or 
at least I think a strong case can be made for that. I think that's why 
several other behave documents ended up being BCPs. I could make an 
argument for standards track, but I think BCP is a reasonable 
alternative conclusion to come to as well for this particular document.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102