On 2008-01-18 13:14, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:50 PM +1300 1/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are
sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of "Informational documents" in the sense of the
enumeration above, with special tagging applied.
That's certainly true of the FYI series (which I believe the
RFC Editor regards as dormant today).
It absolutely is not true of the BCP series - they are
single-stage normative documents, and not a subset of
Informational documents. If there's text in RFC 2026 that
implies otherwise, I need to update draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes
again.
Note that Section 8.1 (which currently doesn't mention BCPs at all, and
thus the needed change) talks about "Informational documents", not
"Informational RFCs". That might be too clever of a differentiation.
Would you be happier if the list above the text you quoted had seven
entries instead of six, with "Best current practices (BCP) documents" as
a new entry in the list?
Yes, that would be fine.
Personally, I don't feel that RFC 2026 is clear enough on the status of
BCPs, and we thus have BCPs whose meaning differs from what 2026 says
BCPs are for. I don't think we can change 2026 in a way that won't
invalidate some BCPs.
It is, however, clear that they are approved like single-stage standards,
with a required last-call and rough consensus, which doesn't apply
to Informationals.
You may want to check for consistency with RFC 4844 through 4846, too.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf