MarcI do not believe the applicability statement is necessary, regardless of how well or poor it is written. The scope of this effort is clear - in the IETF community - and this is not an industry view of applicability, which is how I believe some are reacting as if it were.
Were this applicability to remain, then every IETF ID and RFC would require one, as I know of no situation in which any communication is ever entirely comprised of IETF technologies (i.e., every communication has a layer 2 - which the IETF has no charge of - or is contained entirely within the same physical entity, in which it is rare that maintaining standards based protocols are necessary). There may be corner cases that I'm not thinking about - but I believe this is generally true.
Therefore, I hum *no* to add this applicability statement. James At 01:23 PM 4/24/2009, Marc Linsner wrote:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-09.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-09.txtAt the San Francisco meeting and ensuing list threads, the last issue around PhoneBCP was whether or not to include an 'applicability statement'. The hum during the meeting was inconclusive. The draft editor has included text in this latest version in an attempt to compromise on this issue.Please review this version and respond by Friday May 1 to the list as to your acceptance of this change.Thanks, Marc, Hannes, & Roger _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit