Bruce, This is, IMO, part of the "standing procedural document" problem, with variations for degrees of authority. The basic problems are that * the RFC publication process is too slow to deal with procedural changes and not really designed for it (as distinct from networking documents of various sorts), and * using the "BCP" designation for these documents is confusing to all concerned. Because of those issues, there is no obvious place to put and track the documents, so copies get lost or desynchronized. There is a placeholder proposal in front of NEWTRK, paralleling the "ISD" proposal, that would actually create a document series for these things, separate from BCPs and probably from RFCs. It isn't obviously a NEWTRK work item, but was prepared to export a loose end from the ISD draft. Unless the idea crashes and burns in informal discussions next week, I expect that the NEWTRK Chair and the relevant AD will, sometime thereafter, make a decision about whether and how it should be developed and carried forward. I'd encourage you (and others concerned about this) to have a look at the document and comment as appropriate to the NEWTRK list. The current draft is draft-ietf-newtrk-sd-00.txt. Let's try to figure out a way to move forward, rather than just identifying a collection of problems and pointing them out. regards, john --On Thursday, 03 March, 2005 11:57 -0500 Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The problem is that 1id-guidelines appears many places; there > is one version (and, yes, I mean the content of the various > documents differs; these are not merely mirrors) on the > ISI.EDU ftp site in the in-notes directory (where the RFCs > live), another on the ftp.ietf.org site in the ietf directory > (as referenced by the RFC-Editor's web site), and then there's > the version at http://www.ietf.org/ietf (which might actually > be the same file as on the ftp site, but the only way to tell > for sure would be to download and compare both). > > My first inclination when preparing to write my first draft > was to read RFC 2223 and to go to the RFC-Editor web site > (rather than the IETF site) [I also looked at RFC 2639 and > investigated that path, but _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf