John C Klensin skrev:
Some of this points out, once again, that BCPs are probably the
wrong mechanism for reaching consensus on and publishing process
documents, regardless of what we do with IONs.
Should we keep IONs and, if so, should we keep them in their
present form or so some tuning? Frankly, I don't care about
the specifics. But, if we get rid of them and the price is
either (i) to try to give BCP status to relatively informal
statements about interpretation of principles or (ii) to
encourage the IESG to keep its real procedures secret because
there is no place to put them, I think those would be
significant steps in the wrong direction.
I agree fully with the statements I quote above.
(quibble - I call the BCPs that describe the principles for the process
"process" documents, so I'd say that BCPs are probably the wrong
mechanism for reaching consensus on and publishing *procedure* documents
- and the DISCUSS procedure is a procedure. But I think we're in
IETF mailing list