In recent discussion of a proposed replacement of a BCP RFC, a couple of problems have reappeared: 1. There seems to be a fairly wide misunderstanding of what BCP RFCs are supposed to cover. Part of the problem is that "Best Current Practice" isn't a terribly good name for the sort of administrative procedures and policies that BCPs actually address. Many individuals apparently believe that discussions of how to administer user accounts and the like are suitable for BCP. It is clear from the RFC 2026 discussion that that isn't what BCP RFCs are about -- for those who bother to read 2026. Reinforcing the misinterpretation are comments referring to "Next-Best Current Practice" and/or "Worst Current Practice". I suspect that there would be some resistance to changing the term "BCP" itself, so the only solution to this problem seems to lie in better education w.r.t. the true purpose and scope of BCP. 2. There seems to be a broad and deep lack of understanding of and appreciation for the importance of backwards compatibility. In searching the entire on-line collection of RFCs for an authoritative definition and in-depth discussion of the issue, I found none. I believe the IAB could provide a much-needed service to the Internet Community by developing such a definition and explanation, possibly including it in a revision of RFC 1958, ideally with BCP (rather than Informational) status. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf