Subject: RE: IETF mission (RE: pausable explanation for the Document Series)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:38:05 +0300

Hi all,

> perhaps more generally - there isn't such an obvious pattern to them, either
> for what they look like or how they are created, so they are mostly off
> people's radar.

As a contributor to one:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3257.txt

I don't think that these are really very mysterious beasts.

I suggest that ADs should encourage these documents in WGs their charter.

John

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:57:41 -0700

Hello John,

I also wholeheartedly support the inclusion of an applicability
statement whenever it makes sense.  However, I also suggest that
the protocol SHOULD (within engineering discretion) not intentionally
restrict its applcability to the situations delineated in the
applicability statement.

I would restate Postel's maxim:

Be conservative in the claimed applicability, but generous
in the potential applicability.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:25:29 -0400

>  However, I also suggest that

I disagree.  A protocol spec should be careful to claim applicability
only for that which it's been designed to do, and for which it's been
reviewed.  This doesn't preclude use of the protocol for other purposes,
but it should be clear that such use is not within the scope of the
standard.

And where it's know that use is inappropriate, this should be clearly
stated.  (not that this stops people - look how many sites are using
HTTP cookies for authentication)