"Joe" == Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> writes:
Joe> On 8/11/2015 9:56 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> I would propose that the new BCP be the set of 1984 and RFC2804
>> (which is also informational). I also think that this would be
>> proceedurally make more sense.
>>
>> -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman
Software
>> Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Joe> Has anyone considered the potential to revise this document
Joe> properly (as it should be) and then issue it (and any
Joe> additional documents) as "BCP 1984"?
That idea has definitely been brought up.
However, for myself, I find that I much prefer promoting the existing
RFC to BCP.
I think we'd tend to have a significant fight about what belongs in a
BCP and what doesn't.
I don't tend to agree with your comments that:
1) A BCP needs to be recommendations to protocol designers/operators; I
read RFC 2026 differently and believe we can use a BCP as a tool for
making any consensus recommendation we feel appropriate.
2) I don't think the issues surrounding whether we're issuing a new
document here are any different than any reclassification. I often find
when a standard is proposed for advancement that I wish it would change
some. We've decided that moving things forward is valuable enough that
you need to be able to get enough people to want to make changes in the
last call to open up the document before you can force that.
3) I disagree with your desire to remove some of the political
statements from the document. In this instance, I think we actually
have consensus strong enough that it's worth the IETF making those
statements.
So, for myself, I favor the current process because I believe it is an
efficient mechanism for getting a stronger document approved.