--On Monday, 22 May, 2006 07:47 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> For #1, it removes the requirements for Last Call and
>> demonstration of community consensus that apply to BCPs.
> In other words, these are IESG Operational Notes, not IETF
> Operational Notes.
Some of them certainly are. Some of them aren't what I would
describe as "operational notes" at all. Others might well be
IAOC documents, secretariat procedural documents, or basic IETF
consensus documents that specify the standards process. But
creating separate document sets for each of those hair-splitting
categories doesn't seem consistent with either efficiency or
keeping a primary focus on products.
It is worth noting in practice that handling some of these
documents as BCPs is not strictly consistent with that term
either. Most of them are procedures, not practices; we adopt
them and then start using them, which makes "current" somewhat
questionable; and applying "best" to our own procedures is
organizationally arrogant: they are just what we do. But
spending time splitting those hairs doesn't seem productive.
I assume that, were you to suggest a better term or acronym,
Harald and the IESG would be receptive. We could, of course,
call them "IETF Procedural Requirements" (IPR) and really create
confusion.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf