On 2008-03-07 16:10, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter 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 does this mean? Is it an argument that as a BCP the "shoulds"
> carry weight whereas now they can be obeyed more conveniently? Or is it
> a general comment regarding the futility of formalizing procedures?
I think it's both. It's harder to disregard a "should" in a BCP;
it's easier to update an IESG-issued document than a BCP,
and it's very hard to get either of them 100% right.
We also have to remember that a "DISCUSS" position is not a formal
part of the IETF process. It's simply the current method used by the
IESG for logging lack of consensus. There's a lot of work in
turning it into formal process language, and I wonder who has
the appetite for that work?
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf