On 2008-03-07 16:10, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter 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 does this mean? Is it an argument that as a BCP the "shoulds"
carry weight whereas now they can be obeyed more conveniently? Or is it
a general comment regarding the futility of formalizing procedures?
I think it's both. It's harder to disregard a "should" in a BCP;
it's easier to update an IESG-issued document than a BCP,
and it's very hard to get either of them 100% right.
We also have to remember that a "DISCUSS" position is not a formal
part of the IETF process. It's simply the current method used by the
IESG for logging lack of consensus. There's a lot of work in
turning it into formal process language, and I wonder who has
the appetite for that work?
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf