Paul Hoffman skrev:
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?
I would.
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.
Sure we can. "A BCP is a document that is approved by the IESG as a
BCP". :-)
They are definitely not informational documents.
(I long ago proposed splitting the series into the two effective
subseries it has - "process documents" and "forcefully recommended
advice to operators/implementors" - but that obvious move is Just Too
Much Of A Hassle....)
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf