--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
> document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
> requirements document in the sense that it is laying out
> requirements for future protocol documents being developed by
> a WG; it is a consensus document listing the requirements for
> the operation and administration of a type of device. If that
> doesn't fall within the 2nd paragraph of RFC 2026 section 5, I
> don't know what does.
Just to be disagreeable...
I think "requirements for the operation and administration of a
type of device" puts it squarely into the "Applicability
Statement" range, in part of permit testing of those
requirements and advancement along the standards track. Of
course, the precedent is RFCs 1122 and 1123 which requirements
for operation and administration as well as for protocol
conformance and are clearly applicability statements (and more
or less the prototype for that category).
john