Bruce,
> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more
flexibility in operational procedures than we can get from the
BCP mechanism. Asking for community input, and posting the resulting
text on the web site, seems to give that flexibility.
(If there are any true changes of principle involved, then touching
up the relevant BCPs would be called for. But, for example, your comments
about the required boilerplate are not comments on this text, but on
BCP 78, just re-published.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf