On 2008-01-18 13:14, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 12:50 PM +1300 1/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> > Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are >> sub- >>> series of Informational RFCs. >> >> Namely: >> >>> The sub-series of FYIs and >>> BCPs are comprised of "Informational documents" in the sense of the >>> enumeration above, with special tagging applied. >> >> That's certainly true of the FYI series (which I believe the >> RFC Editor regards as dormant today). >> >> It absolutely is not true of the BCP series - they are >> single-stage normative documents, and not a subset of >> Informational documents. If there's text in RFC 2026 that >> implies otherwise, I need to update draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes >> again. > > Note that Section 8.1 (which currently doesn't mention BCPs at all, and > thus the needed change) talks about "Informational documents", not > "Informational RFCs". That might be too clever of a differentiation. > > Would you be happier if the list above the text you quoted had seven > entries instead of six, with "Best current practices (BCP) documents" as > a new entry in the list? Yes, that would be fine. > > Personally, I don't feel that RFC 2026 is clear enough on the status of > BCPs, and we thus have BCPs whose meaning differs from what 2026 says > BCPs are for. I don't think we can change 2026 in a way that won't > invalidate some BCPs. It is, however, clear that they are approved like single-stage standards, with a required last-call and rough consensus, which doesn't apply to Informationals. You may want to check for consistency with RFC 4844 through 4846, too. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf