--On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 13:27 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
To clarify: I don't think RFC20 is a precedent for saying
yes to this status change and the above wasn't intended to
imply that. The only precedent I think we get from RFC20 is
that the argument "that text is old" is not *by itself*
reason enough to say no to the status change.
That is fair. I read it as saying something more like "RFC 20
sets the precedent for moving almost anything, of any status,
onto the standards track (or BCP), with only a Last Call and
note in the tracker". As you have gathered, I interpret the
RFC 20 experience much more narrowly and, in particular, see
"move things from one category to another" as potentially
different from "assign a category to something previously listed
as 'unknown'". From my point of view, one way to avoid
removing that paragraph would be to clarify what you think the
precedent is and the above is fine. On the other hand, given
that the IESG, with sufficient community consensus, can change
or make exceptions to almost anything, I'm not sure your
claiming precedents is really helpful. On the other hand, if
you want to cite something, Section 2.2 of RFC 6410 makes it
quite clear that reclassification of a document, at least from
Proposed Standard to Internet Standard, is permitted without a
new RFC being required. I think extrapolating from that to BCP
is at least as reasonable as extrapolating from the somewhat
special case of a previously "unknown" status spec like RFC 20.
Neither is really a precedent for a change from Informational to
anything else or from something else to BCP.
As far as I know there aren't any other status changes that
provide us with useful precedent here, but I could be wrong
on that.
See earlier notes. Several moves to Historic and, I think, at
least one exercise of the Proposed-> Internet Standard
transition without issuance of new RFCs.
So we could modify or remove that paragraph fairly easily
I think. (Mind you I'm also not getting why that is an
important change to make.)
See above. My concern is about claiming a precedent that could
be too broadly interpreted and that would then get us in trouble
later. Personally, I'd be happy if you said "this is an
unusual action, but circumstances seem to justify it and it is
generally consistent with things we do by exception as long as
community consensus is present". If you need precedent or
authorization for that, Section 9 of RFC 2026 seems quite clear
to me.
If nobody suggests an alternative, or to keep it, I can
remove it. (Might be better done in a week or so, around the
middle of the LC in case there are other accumulated changes.)
Ack.
best,
john