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

SM <> Wed, 18 July 2012 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B828C11E8102 for <>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.57
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBVcNWT42gyn for <>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2212011E8101 for <>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6I0q7Kq027974; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1342572732; bh=Xu+3EHWtJJPHd60nsjmW0cMzEVS25TUNiho+/QxuA28=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=leOjK7qHLSzzDRLHee+a4pzvSgWL1YLzY9bcZzZvlqD+O7m4Lt4QQ+xw/2KH9/MzF muEILF+s9UZSVkDyjKPkym1U3di+pnTy4eijUUZG2JNPcpb9Z6Bx/V8B23OiHywNCt QrQwg9W6zq/MtUo7f5ZQxjTQw8yVwsDvgPk/2/Is=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1342572732;; bh=Xu+3EHWtJJPHd60nsjmW0cMzEVS25TUNiho+/QxuA28=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=xQy9v5VOOmjX/smQDVDAGlV6wdovjLdfpvDaBju3dzkIw7eotSFK70eIW9ilijOG2 IGG+T6IZlXHovbOT9rdvSoNviFVga9vlvLKBJ7KBVY43YLtvP0EjZ1TuCb6RWNpPct LUaM5i2Vs1VVB4h0TaOqNl0EuIUdQ30dIq1wFHxg=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:50:43 -0700
To: Pete Resnick <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:51:32 -0000

Hi Pete,
At 11:57 17-07-2012, 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.

I don't recall seeing an IPR disclosure on a BCP.  Most new 
Informational RFCs are also consensus documents.  There are a few 
Informational RFCs which lists requirements for operation and 
administration.  I don't think that this document should be BCP as 
the status does not exercise the "must demonstrate at least two 
independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing process".