On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> Brian,
>
> A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
> problems related to 3777:
>
> On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>> Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>> To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
>> is crafted, with "should" and when to disregard "should" being
>> very precise. What I think we've seen, with 2026 over the years,
>> and apparently this year with 3777, is that it's virtually
>
> I am not sure whether you have made it to the appendix in my report, but
> the disagreements in interpretation of 3777 have a history (see Page
> 37). The only thing special about the current nomcom is that we chose
> to bring it to the community's attention. In Ralph's case, he brought
> it to the IESG and IAB's attention in March 2006.
That's true, from my personal knowledge since I was in the IESG
at that time. However, that supports my point ;-) .
(Not to be defensive, but the only changes in RFC 3777 that Ralph
specifically recommended were the ones covered in RFC 5078).
Brian
>
> thanks,
> Lakshminath
> Nomcom 2007-8 Chair
>
>> impossible to write precise procedural text that deals with
>> completely unexpected circumstances. Yet if the text has the
>> force of a BCP, it becomes very hard to interpret it flexibly
>> when flexibility is clearly needed. I don't know if that
>> is Sam's point, of course.
>>
>> Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> IETF@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf