David and Gorry,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Black, David
<david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com> wrote:
My concerns is that BCP are commonly used by ADs to enforce
compliance.
So I am wondering why this document is not just Informational?
AFAIR, the WG wanted it to be BCP to be a stronger recommendation to
protocol designers than would be an Informational doc.
Yes the document was marked BCP on 2011-01-26 after WG discussion and
advice from our ADs, but this was not based on offering advice to IANA
(as
in RFC 6335), but rather guidance to protocol and applications designers
needing to use transport ports.
I concur with Gorry's summary, and believe that BCP status is appropriate.
I suggest teeing this concern (whether BCP vs. Informational is the right
status for this sort of guidance document) up to the IESG for a decision.
In its ordinary English (dictionary) meaning, "best current practice"
certainly applies to this draft. OTOH, the IETF notion of BCP has a
rather specific meaning and some definite implications in practice. FWIW,
Alexey is not the only person who's made note of that concern wrt this
draft.
In my view, the IESG owns the decision (and decision criteria) on what
should vs. should not be a BCP. I think we should expand the draft writeup
to note this concern (BCP vs. Informational status) as one that needs IESG
attention and ask our ADs to ensure that it does get suitable IESG
attention.
Much as I prefer to resolve open issues before IESG Evaluation, in this
case,
I think the IESG needs to make a decision, and it is within reason for us
to
ask them to do so ;-).
Thanks,
--David (as Gorry's tsvwg WG co-chair)
That sounds exactly right. I'll wait until you are happy with the shepherd
writeup before I proceed.
Spencer