Hi Spencer, I think there's a bit more to be said, though. The goal is to make the Internet work better, not to make private networks work better. Actually RFC 3935 defines the IETF's scope as: "protocols and practices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected to have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to form part of the infrastructure of the Internet." So if there are two ways of doing something, one of which works globally and one of which only works locally, the choice is a no-brainer. If a local-only solution comes up to the IESG, I think the first question is "Why isn't there a globally applicable solution to this problem?". Then the second question is "Why is this on the standards track, rather than being an informational document for the record?". And the third question is "Why is this better as an IETF document rather than an Independent Submission?". There may be perfectly good answers to those questions, but IMHO they need to be asked. Regards Brian On 29/01/2014 09:14, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Disclaimer - I'm one of the ADs who will be balloting your documents > until at least March 2015, but I'm only one of 15 ADs, and haven't > talked about this with the rest of the IESG. > > The past week has brought me yet another example of an idea that could > be a good idea, but not under every possible set of conditions, being > evaluated as if we had to decide whether it was a good idea in all > cases, or a bad idea. This might sound familiar to you, but if it does, > let's not talk about that specific case. > > The longer (and more painfully) we talk during Last Call, the more > details we unearth that help me to understand what document > authors/working groups are thinking, and that's good, but if it was less > painful, that would be even better. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.2 describes Applicability > Statements, as distinct from Technical Specifications, and says (among > other things): > > 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 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. > > > Speaking only for myself, I don't expect Proposed Standards to be > perfect, and to work perfectly in every situation, but if a > specification doesn't describe any limits on applicability, I'm going to > be evaluating it as if it will be used on the open Internet (that's what > the "I" in "IETF" stands for). > > If a draft says it's only intended to be used within an IP subnet, I'd > evaluate it differently. I might ask that the authors/working group > consider what the TTL should be set to, so that what starts out within > an IP subnet stays within an IP subnet, but (to use one actual example) > we wouldn't be arguing about whether it's OK to send 32K max-length > packets over an arbitrary Internet path at line rate without getting any > feedback about path capacity - there are probably paths where that would > work, and there are definitely paths where it would not. > > If a draft says it's only intended to be used on provisioned, managed > internetwork links subject to SLA monitoring, I'd evaluate it differently. > > If a draft says "this is a hack, intended for use on old hardware that > can't do $X", I'd evaluate it differently. > > There are other limited-use scenarios that would make me evaluate a > draft differently. > > None of this is a guaranteed pass, but it would help me a lot. It would > likely help other reviewers, too. > > So, if you don't intend for your draft to be used on the global > Internet, please say so! As per > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.3, it's not necessary to > put an Applicability Statement in a different draft; just a section that > says (another actual example) "this has been tested using these > parameters on a lightly-loaded LAN, and it works there", that is more > helpful than a tug of war(*) about whether something is a good idea or a > bad idea in all situations, in front of a live studio audience. > > Thanks to Alia Atlas for nudging me to think about this more. > > Spencer > > p.s. If you have feedback about what I'm thinking, I'd love for you to > share it, whether on this list, privately to me, to the 2015 Nomcom, or > to other Nomcom-eligible IETF participants when you're asking them to to > sign the recall petition ;-) > > (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tug_of_war >