Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 26 April 2012 00:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E9411E8096; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, 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 2ixoavMYlrjo; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8339D11E8076; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3Q0056G001300; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335398410; i=@resistor.net; bh=GoDB6Gcutl4fac7t20bvCti1VwGn1ID24Olnm6RrBHQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ks73VxNqrdhsYCQt+LUIkv2MENs+NCMYtFHvroAWmhNFVzI+WrYForwQDCM8QBP7Q JVMJRtJKOwkHVFaPKwXQ/WZJ0VK07spswlf9YRP6zsOR24eubFjFT1XQaZm3GaRUOx pD9/Yf4BvyXyWkz1bKz5ewsD0eEfPszSveDQuh+A=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1335398410; i=@resistor.net; bh=GoDB6Gcutl4fac7t20bvCti1VwGn1ID24Olnm6RrBHQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NNJYqDRvtdK3XNCSe9hnLEBgTcBOmKBMkfNqY8GBr2/H5ljKkRORQ0p2i/bbePlIf CvcsHjiAv0m6L40YgKGdaXbg4NFRBZA6tn6Fnp9Grq8pdWUP7iKF9oXXtrxRMXZVEn ZNW9HIpqW0deCkUudmjrUNQLUCF1VLP7CrdYoFY4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120425161548.0b3ad3c8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:57:22 -0700
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:13 -0000

Hi Benoit,
At 03:03 25-04-2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>Let me ask a very basic question to everybody, including the other 
>IESG members: what is the goal of an Applicability Statement?

That was the question which comes to mind on reading the DISCUSS-DISCUSS.

>1. Explain how the technical specifications are used "in the wild", 
>as you mentioned. So a deployment experience document
>2. Or explain how the technical specifications should be used for 
>the different use cases (generally specified in a requirement document)
>When I read RFC 2026 section 3.2, I conclude for 2.

That section mentions Technical Specification.   The Applicability 
Statement was about restricted "domain of applicability" when using 
the Technical Specification.

One little quirk is:

   "An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track
    than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
    For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS
    at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at
    the Standard level."

There are a few other quirks.  Whether they are relevant or not 
depends on whether one wants to cherry-pick what's in RFC 2606.

Regards,
-sm