Subject: [eman] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:34:24 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I generally support the points raised by Brian, Pete, and Stephen.

It sounds like this document is going to get re-evaluated as a standards
track Applicability Statement. I would suggest that the authors and WG
consider the existing text in light of what is involved in an
Applicability Statement (RFC 2026 Section 3.2) before that re-evaluation
happens. In particular, an Applicability Statement is supposed to
describe how, and under what circumstances, one or more technical
specifications can be applied to support a particular Internet
capability. There are several use cases in this document that provide no
explanation of how the EMAN technical specifications can be applied to
support the use cases, in particular the ones listed in 2.10, 2.11, and
2.12.

Editorial comment on Section 4.1.3:

"In particular, one of the concepts being considered
        different energy meters based on if the device consumes
        electricity, produces electricity, or is a passive device."
    
This sentence does not parse.