Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
The use cases (and not an applicability statement) described in the document appear quite hypothetical and rather disconnected from practical network design and engineering principles as seen in the field. The whole document reads more as a marketing functionality demonstration rather than a set of framwework principles and reasoning behind those principles that would be expected to be found in an applicability statement.
I largely agree with Mirja. The shepherd write-up says this document is called for in the WG charter, but I don't find that text in the charter. It's unclear why this document needs to be published as an RFC.
I find the title of this document rather misleading as the doc mainly outlines use cases. I would have expected that the boundaries of the applicability of i2nsf to certain scenarios are discussed which is not the case. My understanding from the charter would further be that an applicability statement is connected to a specific data model (and I would also have expected that statement to be published in the same document). One minor additional comment: I'm surprised to only see a reference to AVANT-GUARD but no mentioning of the IETF DOTS effort....
I don’t see that this is an applicability statement (see the meaning of that in RFC 2026). This is describing use cases, which is fine, but is not what it appears to be saying it’s doing, and doesn’t seem to have long-term value.
[Thank you for addressing my discuss.] This document does provide a little more detailed view (than rfc8329) of the I2NSF Framework in that it does reference the models that make it up. In order for this document to be an Applicability Statement, I believe that significant work is needed to go beyond showing where the models fit, I am then ABSTAINing and won't stand in the way of publication.