--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 23:16 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I _think_ the intent is that the published BCP will represent > a formal agreement between ISOC and the IETF, but of course > the work-in-progress internet-draft does not. Given this, I > think it's appropriate any time we add to text for people > comment on "what we're asking ISOC to do". By proposing > adding a requirement to a document we expect will represent > agreement between ISOC and the IETF, we _are_ asking ISOC to > do something. >... Jeffrey, I think we need to be a little careful with any assumptions about changes between that "work in progress" I-D and the "published RFC". According to the I-D tracker, bcp-04 was in the IESG's queue for _approval action_ at today's teleconf (I haven't checked today to see if there has been an update but it would normally take a bit of time to appear even had there been an action). The reason for getting it into the queue is described in the tracker and makes that listing basically a placeholder -- it is a bit of a procedural ruse, but, at least IMO, nothing serious. It creates an opportunity for abuse, but I do not expect that it will be abused. But the important point is that the queue entry is about -04, not about -05 nor some "ready to be published" formal agreement text. Once something is approved by the IESG and sent off to the RFC Editor, what gets published is the document as sent modulo boilerplate, editorial, and formatting changes. The various schedules that have floated around don't contain a step for "rewrite the agreement into the form of a formal agreement and then Last Call it again". The Last Call would, IMO, be needed given a complete rewrite so that the community could verify that the intent had not changed. If you (or others) think such a rewrite is important, then you had best start advocating that position and seeing if you can get support behind it. Otherwise, I think that, more or less what you see today in -04 is what you are going to get. My assumption is that the IESG will, in fact, not take action on -04 plus an unimplemented list of changes but that -05 will be posted and the community will have at least some chance to review it before action is taken (I hope that is correct and would be, personally, pretty upset if something were approved and sent to the RFC Editor that the community hadn't reviewed). However, again, I'd be astonished if -05 differed in general style or presentation from -04... at least unless the community makes it very clear, and soon, that it will insist on that sort of rewrite. I think that, so far, you are the first person who has asked for it. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf