Re: Definitions, names, and confusion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--On tirsdag, januar 11, 2005 20:01:37 -0500 Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

actually the BCP label has multiple, largely disjunct areas of coverage.

I once (many years back) suggested splitting the categories into Recommended Internet Practices and Directives for Oversight and Administration, but the acronyms didn't survive the laugh test....



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]