Bruce,
> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be. > I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more flexibility in operational procedures than we can get from the BCP mechanism. Asking for community input, and posting the resulting text on the web site, seems to give that flexibility.
(If there are any true changes of principle involved, then touching up the relevant BCPs would be called for. But, for example, your comments about the required boilerplate are not comments on this text, but on BCP 78, just re-published.)
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf