John C Klensin wrote:
[ltru-initial]
> The WG and IESG should do what they think best, but this
> really seems pretty obvious to me.
Yes, it's _now_ obvious, but it wasn't before you started
this thread. So keeping the rest of "ltru-initial" as an
informational or historic RfC might also help others when
they look for a "how-to".
> none of the above has anything to do, one way or the
> other, with my concerns about BCP versus Standards Track
That puzzle is for the IESG, I hope that they find a better
answer than "toss a coin". On the technical side I'd like
to see a way to communicate the "intended status" in an I-D
with xml2rfc (not only for Bruce's reviews). And I hope
that splitting the BCP series into "techno" vs. "meta" (or
similar) shows up in a future carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-01.
[applications-specific profiles]
> Whatever the right answers to those concerns are, they are
> not as obvious, at least to me.
For that part all I found as potential candidates is "never
use script subtags" (e.g. audio) and "always use a script"
(= intentionally violating several SHOULDs in conjunction
with Suppress-Script). If that's really all it's obvious,
no additional profile-headaches necessary at the moment.
It's possible to add this later if some future extension
registry offers more exciting choices than to script or
not to script.
Maybe we could mention this in a note about the extension
registries. Also as a hint for the future DS^W3066ter.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf