C. M. Heard wrote:
Having just re-read the charter, I would have to say so. I think we
would have been better served if the WG had been given the much less
ambitious task of producing an update of RFC 2026 that describes what
we actually do.
What we actually do is a one step process. Let us accept for purposes
of argument that a three step process is good, as Frank Ellermann
suggests. If we want to make it functional something has to change, and
that means not describing what we actually do. All of this having been
said, I'll repeat that I'm fine with a BCP to update 2026 to allow down
references, if that clears the logjam.
Well, one possibility might be to charter a design team or WG to do
just that -- i.e., to take the term "Best Current Practice" at face
value and produce of a standards process BCP that actually documents
current practice.
I think the IESG has to take a FAR more active role in any such effort
to avoid a repeat of the failure.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf