On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with "should" and when to disregard "should" being
very precise. What I think we've seen, with 2026 over the years,
and apparently this year with 3777, is that it's virtually
I am not sure whether you have made it to the appendix in my report, but
the disagreements in interpretation of 3777 have a history (see Page
37). The only thing special about the current nomcom is that we chose
to bring it to the community's attention. In Ralph's case, he brought
it to the IESG and IAB's attention in March 2006.
That's true, from my personal knowledge since I was in the IESG
at that time. However, that supports my point ;-) .
(Not to be defensive, but the only changes in RFC 3777 that Ralph
specifically recommended were the ones covered in RFC 5078).
Brian
thanks,
Lakshminath
Nomcom 2007-8 Chair
impossible to write precise procedural text that deals with
completely unexpected circumstances. Yet if the text has the
force of a BCP, it becomes very hard to interpret it flexibly
when flexibility is clearly needed. I don't know if that
is Sam's point, of course.
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf