On 30. Aug 2021, at 17:36, Roman Danyliw <rdd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The reasoning that motivated this document being PS was that it was updating other PS documents. No more nuance than that. Too lazy to check: Are there any documents being updated that should not be BCPs in the first place? Maybe this could be one more element of the “updates” discussion — a BCP can update a standards-track document that only became that way because at the time BCP hadn’t been invented yet. Grüße, Carsten -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
