A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

[Aaron Falk]

First, thank you to Melinda and Johnathan (& Randy, as well) for
putting a little more 'raw data' on the table.  I find it much more
helpful when we're talking about something that actually happened than
high level abstractions.  Grounding problems in actual situation adds
credability and may result in others being able to contribute their
interpretation of the nature of the problem.  I encourage others to
follow suit...  (e.g., I'm struggling to believe the reality of the
problem that jak has described and would welcome some specifics)

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Melinda,
> 
> Monday, December 16, 2002, 9:35:38 AM, you wrote:
> Melinda> Also, to get closer to the topic at hand, I do think it's a
> Melinda> mistake to publish "interim" protocols that don't have
> Melinda> specific transitional value.
> 
> This is a revolutionary thought.  Suggesting that we should have some idea
> how a protocol is going to be used, before releasing it, could have all
> sorts of ramifications.
> 
> We could even require that a wg charter make explicit usage scenario
> statements.

FWIW, in dccp we've been asked to add an 'applicability statement' to
our protocol specification.  The term seemed un-necessarily vague to
me but RFC2026 says: 

   An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted
   "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal
   servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-
   based database servers.

and so usage scenarios -- where in the stack as well as where in the
topology -- seem within this definition.  I understand that you are
suggesting putting it in charters, I'm making the point that, at least
in my case, the IESG is already probing/constraining the issue.

And, yes, this is a long way from excluding "interim" protocols from
our standards.

--aaron