On 2007-01-30 13:59, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
<snip>
What I'm talking about is that if you type in BCP 9 in the RFC Editor
search engine, the only RFC that pops up as part of BCP 9 is 2026, but
the RFC Index says "Updated by RFC3667, RFC3668, RFC3932, RFC3979,
RFC3978".
This is a special case, because those documents are BCP 78, 79 and
92 respectively (i.e. someone decided to give them distinct BCP
numbers). If you look for, e.g., BCP 101 you will get both RFC 4071
and RFC 4371. So, it all depends.
<snip>
On the other hand, this ION is an "Informal Guide". If you think it's
better to say "we wouldn't dream of changing BCP procedures in an ION,
but we do note that as of <date> this procedure hasn' been followed
since it was oriiginally described in RFC 1310, there are no known plans
to follow it, there has never been an appeal because we don't follow it,
and there has never been an AD recall petition because we don't follow
it", that seems like something I'd hope a guide would tell me.
Could you ping the rest of the IESG and see whether this reasoning seems
flawed?
Sure, when the comment period expires and I roll up all the comments.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf