OK, so basically changes in the standards track:
promotion
demotion (e.g., to Historic)
I can even see changing informational de-facto or individual standards
to standards-track.
What makes NO sense is a BCP. If it wasn't a BCP when it was issued
(even if there was no such thing), then it isn't a BCP now.
If you want a BCP now, then open the can of worms and have the
discussion on content.
This whole thing, however, is based on the ridiculous goal of retaining
an RFC number - numbers that we NEVER assume we can retain for even the
most ubiquitous of standards.
Joe
On 8/11/2015 2:13 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
I disagree with this as an absolute statement
there are times, not all that often but actual cases, where a technical RFC
has been progressed
on the standards track without creating a new RFC
it does take developing information about implementations etc, bit that info
does not go into a RFC
Scott
On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 8/11/2015 2:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There is no end-run. The IESG might conclude from the discussion that there
is no rough consensus to reclassify the RFC.
IMO, reclassifying an existing RFC that isn't to "Historic" is an end-run.
Joe