Harald Alvestrand wrote:
[BCP}
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....
...it could be more straight forward than "BCPs listed in the
Procdoc ION" (or not).
Brian mentioned about FYIs:
| which I believe the RFC Editor regards as dormant today
RFC 4949 is now FYI 36, replacing RFC 2828. Is FYI simply a kind
of 'informational favourites' picked by the rfc-editor.org folks ?
About the TAO, I consider it as the "nice" or "social" version of
Procdoc, where Procdoc is the "emily postnews" or "marauder's map"
of the IETF for those who found that "nice" doesn't cut it.
If the TAO tries to stay up to date with say the forever changing
boilerplates of IPR maybe it should be also an ION (like Procdoc).
The idea of IONs is to get official snapshots of changing details
in the standards process not relevant for the "Internet at large"
(incl. IANA), isn't it ?
Or maybe TAO is the IETF "user manual" and public FAQ, while IONs
not limited to Procdoc are the "reference manual" for folks trying
to figure out why "user manual" and "implementation" are different.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf