On 7/17/12 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--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).
Just to be somewhat agreeable... ;-)
Normally, I would be right with you and say, "This should be on the
standards track." However, this document is about CGNs. It's about
things that are almost by definition not nice interoperable players on
the Internet. They are messy local devices for (albeit large) local
networks. Indeed, there are many folks who think that horrific plagues
be visited upon those who deploy CGNs and that they should be dismantled
as soon as humanly possible, if not before. But in any event, this is
not really a spec "for hardware and software required for computer
communication across interconnected networks", but rather is a document
for "networks operated by a great variety of organizations, with diverse
goals and rules" to provide "operators and administrators of the
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations". Or
at least I think a strong case can be made for that. I think that's why
several other behave documents ended up being BCPs. I could make an
argument for standards track, but I think BCP is a reasonable
alternative conclusion to come to as well for this particular document.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102