John C Klensin skrev:
>
> Some of this points out, once again, that BCPs are probably the
> wrong mechanism for reaching consensus on and publishing process
> documents, regardless of what we do with IONs.
>
> Should we keep IONs and, if so, should we keep them in their
> present form or so some tuning? Frankly, I don't care about
> the specifics. But, if we get rid of them and the price is
> either (i) to try to give BCP status to relatively informal
> statements about interpretation of principles or (ii) to
> encourage the IESG to keep its real procedures secret because
> there is no place to put them, I think those would be
> significant steps in the wrong direction.
>
I agree fully with the statements I quote above.
(quibble - I call the BCPs that describe the principles for the process
"process" documents, so I'd say that BCPs are probably the wrong
mechanism for reaching consensus on and publishing *procedure* documents
- and the DISCUSS procedure is a procedure. But I think we're in
fundamental agreement.)
Harald
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf