Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07

[SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pete,
At 11:57 17-07-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this 
> document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a 
> requirements document in the sense that it is laying out 
> requirements for future protocol documents being developed by a WG; 
> it is a consensus document listing the requirements for the 
> operation and administration of a type of device. If that doesn't 
> fall within the 2nd paragraph of RFC 2026 section 5, I don't know what does.

I don't recall seeing an IPR disclosure on a BCP.  Most new 
Informational RFCs are also consensus documents.  There are a few 
Informational RFCs which lists requirements for operation and 
administration.  I don't think that this document should be BCP as 
the status does not exercise the "must demonstrate at least two 
independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing process".

Regards,
-sm