Just one comment here; leaving the rest for Murray: Martin: >> Reading through, this doesn't smell very much like an applicability >> statement at all. It has the distinct odor of a profile, or a set of >> implementation/deployment/operational guidelines. That might just be >> me.
Murray: > It is an Applicability Statement in the sense of Section 3.2 of RFC 2026. Indeed, and the problem is that we've used stand-along Applicability Statements so infrequently in recent years that we don't seem to know what they are any more. Worse, we've often started to call them "profiles". I think an Applicability Statement is a normative document that does not in itself define a protocol, but specifies how to *apply* one or more profiles to solve a particular (set of) problem(s) or to perform a particular (set of) function(s). It might well be that we should start calling many of the "profiles" that we do "Applicability Statements" instead. The advantage here is that the AS is a standards-track document, and will progress along the standards track just as a Technical Specification would. Making it Information loses that aspect. Barry, document shepherd _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
