Date: 2005-03-02 07:59
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
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.
Rationale for BCP:
1. I suspect we want the procedures to be readily visible to potential
authors
2. I suspect we want authors to know that the issues addressed in the
guidelines have the backing of the IESG
3. The suggested IANA Considerations section implies some sort of RFC
Asking for community input, and posting the resulting
text on the web site, seems to give that flexibility.
Perhaps, but it is not clear that the document has any standing, nor
is it necessarily easy to find (*which* web site(s)?). Would IANA
take note of direction given in some random (non-RFC) document?
If there's another sort of official document for administrative
procedures and guidelines, that might work; are there? If so, where
does one find them?
It's not clear what sort of flexibility would be lacking in a BCP
RFC, given that guidelines can be expressed in RFC 2119 terms "MAY",
"OPTIONAL", "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and even "MUST" where
appropriate, and that BCPs can be (and are) updated when necessary.
What sort of flexibility did you have in mind?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf