From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <jrace(_at_)attglobal(_dot_)net>
...
I have just posted a Best Current Practice addressing this matter
...
Who died and made you king of the IETF?
(Please don't be insulted by that, because I meant it in jest.)
My point is that all of the talk of BCPs, germs of BCPs, IDs for
the solution to the spam problem and so forth that I've seen in the
flood of noise on this list is not only grossly premature, irritating,
and often insulting, but also seems to be based on a misunderstanding
of the IETF and the IRTF. No one can simply "post a BCP." BCPs
are RFCs and that means they must get the approval of the IESG or
at least the IAB merely to be advanced from ID (Internet Draft) to RFC.
To become a BCP an RFC must be supported by the consensus of the IETF.
This is an IRTF mailing list, not the mailing list of an IETF working group.
As such, it seems like a distant source for BCPs. BCPs are necessarily
operational ('engineering') documents instead of what you'd except
from the Internet Research Task Force.
Just writing some thoughts according to the instructions for authors
of Internet Drafts and calling them a BCP does not make them valid or
cause them to be supported by the consensus of the IETF. Not even
Microsoft was able to carry off naming files on a microsoft.com FTP
server "RFC's." (early Microsoft PPP contributions)
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg