Peter,
Peter Koch wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I read the relevant bits of 2026 a couple of times, and I am pretty
convinced that a BCP can only exist as a single RFC (which may or may not
section 5.1 of 2026 reads:
A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been
approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while
retaining its RFC number(s).
which to me suggests multi-RFC BCPs are as fine as multi-RFC STDs.
Apart from that, it would make sense in terms of usability.
Unfortunately there is not yet any precedent but at least two precedents to
the contrary, where the updating or amending RFC received its own BCP number:
RFC 2827, BCP 38 updated by RFC 3704, BCP 84
RFC 2418, BCP 25 updated by RFC 3934, BCP 94 (more similar to the case
under discussion)
be a bug, but that's what the text seems to say). So this needs to be a
new BCP that updates the RFC 4071 version of BCP 101. You're correct that
Not the most important issue with this document, but please consider to
make 101 a bundle.
Thanks for that. There are words earlier in 2026 that seem to imply
one:one correspondence, but if we do it as part of BCP 101 I agree
it's better.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf