Subject: [eman] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:13:08 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- This draft (section 2) reads more like a collection of use cases than
an applicability statement explaining how the EMAN framework can be
applied to the different use cases. Only a few use cases provide
guidelines wrt EMAN relationships between objects.
Let's take an blatant example, section 2.10 "industrial automation
networks": where is the applicability statement in that section?
I started reading the document with a No Objection in mind, more like
Alissa, who wrote:

    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.

Then I thought about a DISCUSS, but Brad already proposed to delete the
last paragraph of 2.7 and the sections 2.12 & 2.14. That would address my
point. The alternative is to keep those section but to explain how the
EMAN framework, as one building/foundational block, would help solving
those use cases, and elaborate on which extensions would be required,
even succinctly.

- What is your message with section 3? I guess you want to say that the
EMAN framework (in his entirety of as a building) is applicable to all of
these patterns, and that other energy use cases, not described in this
document, with those parameters are potentially applicable to the EMAN
framework.
You might want to stress this point.