Harald Alvestrand wrote: [BCP} > 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.... ...it could be more straight forward than "BCPs listed in the Procdoc ION" (or not). Brian mentioned about FYIs: | which I believe the RFC Editor regards as dormant today RFC 4949 is now FYI 36, replacing RFC 2828. Is FYI simply a kind of 'informational favourites' picked by the rfc-editor.org folks ? About the TAO, I consider it as the "nice" or "social" version of Procdoc, where Procdoc is the "emily postnews" or "marauder's map" of the IETF for those who found that "nice" doesn't cut it. If the TAO tries to stay up to date with say the forever changing boilerplates of IPR maybe it should be also an ION (like Procdoc). The idea of IONs is to get official snapshots of changing details in the standards process not relevant for the "Internet at large" (incl. IANA), isn't it ? Or maybe TAO is the IETF "user manual" and public FAQ, while IONs not limited to Procdoc are the "reference manual" for folks trying to figure out why "user manual" and "implementation" are different. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf