Sam, One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not BCP upon BCP upon BCP. The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented on published operational procedures should not be at odds with our general or specific process documents, or else that seems to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have a community-defined process for that (which seems to result in a BCP). Again -- that's just one person's perspective. Leslie. Sam Hartman wrote:
So, a clarification request: Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John Klensin has made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are better handled by operational procedures made available for community comment than by BCP document. It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all codified in BCP. I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would appreciate comments from its members. --Sam
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
