With the exception of an informative reference to RFC 2629, I'm not sure this is something that can be in the guidelines, but it could certainly be on the web-page.
Alia
At 01:43 PM 3/2/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Date: 2005-03-02 07:59 > From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Bruce, > > Â > It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be. > Â > 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.
Rationale for BCP: 1. I suspect we want the procedures to be readily visible to potential authors 2. I suspect we want authors to know that the issues addressed in the guidelines have the backing of the IESG 3. The suggested IANA Considerations section implies some sort of RFC
> Asking for community input, and posting the resulting > text on the web site, seems to give that flexibility.
Perhaps, but it is not clear that the document has any standing, nor is it necessarily easy to find (*which* web site(s)?). Would IANA take note of direction given in some random (non-RFC) document?
If there's another sort of official document for administrative procedures and guidelines, that might work; are there? If so, where does one find them?
It's not clear what sort of flexibility would be lacking in a BCP RFC, given that guidelines can be expressed in RFC 2119 terms "MAY", "OPTIONAL", "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and even "MUST" where appropriate, and that BCPs can be (and are) updated when necessary.
What sort of flexibility did you have in mind?
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf