Paul Hoffman skrev:
> 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?
I would.
>
> 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.
Sure we can. "A BCP is a document that is approved by the IESG as a
BCP". :-)
They are definitely not informational documents.
(I long ago proposed splitting the series into the two effective
subseries it has - "process documents" and "forcefully recommended
advice to operators/implementors" - but that obvious move is Just Too
Much Of A Hassle....)
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf