Subject: Re: [Ieprep] updated requirements documents (general)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:56:16 EST

In a message dated 12/19/2002 12:54:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

Aside:
    RFC-2975 is an Informational RFC.  It is NOT standards-track.  Anyone
can publish nearly anything as an Informational RFC (e.g. IP over carrier
pigeon is an Informational RFC).  All Internet Standards are RFCs, but
many many RFCs are NOT Internet Standards.

[MAP] Yes, I am fully aware of that.

[RJA]    So the existence of RFC-2975 is not by itself justification for an
IETF WG to include accounting in any standards-track document or informational
document.  The justification for including such needs to be made on its
own merits, not relying on mis-reference to a non-standards-track document
for justification.

[MAP] I was not intending RFC2975 as "justification" for including 
"accounting" in this requirements draft. It simply provides more information 
on what "accounting" (and "auditing" in particular) means.

I presume that the draft under discussion is not a standards-track RFC either.

In a message dated 12/19/2002 12:59:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

I'd be a bit happier if we said "application-layer accounting" rather than
"accounting", for the benefit of folks who read the document later and
haven't seen any presentations or list discussion where IP-layer accounting
was disclaimed.

[MAP] That fine.

Mike Pierce
Artel
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:39:51 -0500

> I presume that the draft under discussion is not a standards-track RFC 

	I don't know how that draft will end up, since that is up to the WG.  
One
possibility would be that it would end up as BCP.  BCP is a 
standards-track state.

Ran
[email-masked]