On 13 Aug 2015, at 16:07, Michael StJohns wrote:
Yes but as I noted - finding that in the IESG minutes requires email
archeology.
Or web site archeology.
There is nothing associated with the document itself, nor for that
matter with the RFC index system that indicates that a document was
made a BCP on a date other than the date it was published.
As Stephen points out, there is a web page for status changes.
Changes to Historic require the submission of an RFC to mark the
change
Not according to 2026 6.4. All it requires is a Last-Call and then
the notification procedures in 6.1.3.
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html
While you are correct that 2026 only requires what you say it does, I
read the IESG statement on saying "no, we're not doing it that way any
more and it's our call".
That page says: “The current process, then, of moving an RFC to
Historic status is to follow one of these, depending upon the level of
documentation and discussion of the documentation required:”
You will notice that following #1 does *not* require a new I-D/RFC, but
only a status change document.
2) According to RFC 2026, BCPs are documents of the IESG, not the
IAB and IESG together.
My read has always been that the IAB and/or IESG can create a
document for the purposes above, it goes through an IETF
discussion/edit, and then it can become a BCP of the IETF.
I can live with the reading of the text. But does that then mean
that the IAB of the current era should be giving its approval as a
group prior to asking the IESG for its approval? Given that it is a
joint statement and both groups are listed as authors.
Well, that’s just another example of why I object to just making this
a BCP instead of re-writing it so it’s clear what the document means.
My read of what’s supposed to happen is that the IAB (and/or IESG)
tosses something over the wall, the IETF would chew on it, and publish
whatever they came up with as a BCP. This thing being written as a joint
statement of the IESG and IAB doesn’t sound like an IETF consensus
statement. It should take all of an hour to rewrite this into a draft
that doesn’t sound like a joint opinion of the leadership. I don’t
see why someone doesn’t just do that.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478