At 6:38 AM -0700 3/9/08, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Dave> Sam Hartman wrote: > >> Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better. > > > Dave> How? > >You can update an IESG statement mor easily than a BCP. As you find >areas where the text is unclear and you have to interpret you can >actually go back and update the text. > No, Dave cannot update an IESG statement or an ION issued by the IESG. He can, however, put forward a proposed replacement document for a BCP as an Internet draft. So could the IESG. See the difference? This particular ION had a life as an internet-draft with an intent to publish it as an RFC before the ION series existed. It was draft-iesg at one time, and no one came up with a draft-ietfer- counter proposal. But our mechanisms for allowing that kind of publication have years of experience behind them. Not so much for community commentary on IONs, IESG statements, or the like, which have tended to be perceived as changeable only by replacing the sitting IESG. Ted Ted _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf