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

Hi Takako

I do not have additional comments on draft!
Regarding the title of the draft, I think that it is possible to change
it!
However, I think that you cannot change the file name!


Best regards,
Georgios


On 3/8/2010, "Takako Sanda" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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