--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