John C Klensin 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.
If they are not all operational notes, then the series should not be called
operational notes.
Whatever their source and whatever their focus, they are approved by the IESG
and not the IETF. They are roughly equivalent to Presidential Executive Orders,
in the U.S. That is rather different from a law or constitutional amendment.
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.
They are IESG documents, not IETF documents. The name needs to be accurate with
respect to the basis of authority, as well as the scope of content.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf