John Klensin wrote (on the IETF discussion list): > This is, IMO, part of the "standing procedural document" There's your TLA: SPD (which might or might not be popular in Germany...). Speaking of TLAs, the WG might want to reconsider ISD which looks quite a bit like ISO, especially in some fonts at small sizes... > 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. The draft looks OK in principle; a few nits: In section 1, 2nd paragraph, "have traditionally be" should be "traditionally have been". The answer to the note in section 2 is above. Or we could revive Harald's suggestions for "Recommended Internet Practices" or "Directives for Oversight and Administration". I suspect you want a different TLA in the heading of section 4. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf