Response- No Joel - you are dead wrong IMHO. The IETF doesnt get to redefine the Industry Term BCP to mean 'some document we publish'. BCP is an accepted Industry Acronym for a document specific to how some practice is done at some specific point in time and it is only valid for the period of that time and the window of how often its 'refreshed or updated'. So there most certainly is a requirement to maintain and keep the BCP's current otherwise the name is wrong - they are NOT BCP's but statement's about a practice at a specific instance in time. This is not something the IETF gets to change, or to create a 'confusing term to imply this document is something that it is not' - its how documents are dealt with in the real world and in the Audit Community we know this already. BCP's need a management practice and process to assure they are always current. This also brings into play that the IETF doesn't have any way of really terminating something that it published that needed to be withdrawn from circulation for whatever reason. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:14 PM Subject: Re: Suggestion on a BCP specific WG... > A) BCPs have an issue date. They are the best current practice at > the time of issue. There is no requirement that we maintain them, > although we like to. > b) There is, as far as I can tell, no intellectual property issue > relative to BCPs that needs to be managed by anyone. > c) There is not any issue I know of to manage with the "collection" of BCPs. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 12:37 PM 3/14/2006, todd glassey wrote: > >Not that you folks take suggestions from me - but there would be a > >tremendous value in creating a specific BCP WG that was a permanent part of > >the IETF to manage the collection and IP issues within BCP's. > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf