Re: Working Group Last Call: Applicability Statement of NSIS Protocols in Mobile Environments

Hi Takako,

I think the title change makes a lot of sense. However, I think
Informational status was the right status as it rather than defining how
to do things it discusses and investigates what the implications of
operating in a mobile environment are on these protocols.

Best Regards

Magnus

Takako Sanda skrev 2010-03-08 10:32:
> Hi Jukka and Magnus,
> 
> Thank you for your comments, and sorry to be late due to my business
> trip.
> 
> As you pointed out, the draft is not talking about applicability
> statement. I will change the title into "NSIS protocols operation in
> Mobile Environment", as well as change the Intended status into
> Experimental.
> If anyone has other preferable title, and/or some comments, please let
> me know even after submitting the newest version.
> 
> Should I change also change the file name?
> 
> Thanks,
> Takako
> 
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:57:32 +0200
> Jukka Manner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, Magnus.
>>
>> Takako, please change the title and probably go through the introduction 
>> to see if it talks about applicability within the text.
>>
>> regards,
>> Jukka
>>
>> On 26.2.2010 11:42, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Are this really an applicability statement in the RFC 2026 sense? This
>>> document is not intended to SPECIFY how you would use NSIS for mobility
>>> signaling.
>>>
>>>  From Section 3.2 of RFC 2026:
>>>>     An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
>>>>     circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular
>>>>     Internet capability.  An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not
>>>>     Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7.
>>>>
>>>>     An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they
>>>>     are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges
>>>>     of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be
>>>>     implemented.  An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use
>>>>     of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section
>>>>     3.3).
>>>>
>>>>     An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted
>>>>     "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal
>>>>     servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-
>>>>     based database servers.
>>>>
>>>>     The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,
>>>>     commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of
>>>>     Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.
>>>>
>>>>     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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It might be worth changing the title of the document to avoid having
>>> people thinking it is a AS. Remove Statement and add a The before
>>> applicability.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>> Jukka Manner skrev 2010-02-22 08:44:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Need to ask our AD. The applicability statement does not define
>>>> technical extensions or change the original specs in any way. It just
>>>> shows how and why the protocols actually work with a mobile hosts.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Jukka
>>>>
>>>> On 20.2.2010 23:09, Al Morton wrote:
>>>>> At 06:44 AM 2/20/2010, Jukka Manner wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-14.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review the document and send your comments by Sunday March 7.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember reading (somewhere) that AS memos should have the
>>>>> same status as the memo(s) they refer to, which in this case would
>>>>> be Experimental?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've searched for my notes about this, with no luck. The relevant text
>>>>> in RFC 2026 puts an upper limit the on the AS memo status:
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.2
>>>>> "...An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track
>>>>> than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies..."
>>>>>
>>>>> We were quite late in sorting-out the status of other NSIS memos,
>>>>> better to do it now, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Al
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------