C. M. Heard wrote: > Having just re-read the charter, I would have to say so. I think we > would have been better served if the WG had been given the much less > ambitious task of producing an update of RFC 2026 that describes what > we actually do. > What we actually do is a one step process. Let us accept for purposes of argument that a three step process is good, as Frank Ellermann suggests. If we want to make it functional something has to change, and that means not describing what we actually do. All of this having been said, I'll repeat that I'm fine with a BCP to update 2026 to allow down references, if that clears the logjam. > Well, one possibility might be to charter a design team or WG to do > just that -- i.e., to take the term "Best Current Practice" at face > value and produce of a standards process BCP that actually documents > current practice. > I think the IESG has to take a FAR more active role in any such effort to avoid a repeat of the failure. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf