--On 30. januar 2007 15:21 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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.
"someone decided" rather than "the IESG decided" is of course a problem in
itself.
Is there a procedure for reassigning which BCP an RFC belongs to?
Should we create one?
(BCP 78 and 79 could easily be part of one BCP, btw - but by now, they're
long enough established by the boilerplate that we probably need to keep
them where they are)
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf