-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Pete
Resnick
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 8:08 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp
I think Keith has it pretty spot-on. BCPs are for documents where it
makes no sense to talk about the concepts of (to quote 2026) "protocol,
service, procedure, convention, or format", "particular methods of using
a [technical specification]", "specify particular values or ranges, of
TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be
implemented", "interoperability", and "implementation and/or operational
experience".
Herein lies my confusion. What is a Best Current Practices document if not one
that talks about conventions, particular methods of using the thing a
specification defines, [improved] interoperability, or relating of operational
experience?
My personal take is
that BCPs should be reserved to guidelines for operators and
administrators, statements of architectural principles, and
documentation of procedures and operations of the IETF itself.
That sounds right, but some of it seems (to me) to conflict with the citations
you made. I suspect there's some (pardon the allusion) grey area in there that
makes it hard, for me at least, to see clearly when something should be a BCP
and something should be an AS.