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

Hi Magnus,

Thank you for your comment.
I will keep the Intended status Informational.

BR,
Takako

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:23 +0100
Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis