Debbie Garside wrote: > I and a few others thought a BCP was worth something. Apparently not. Please don't panic, nobody said that RFC 2606 or 4646 are "worthless". This discussion is mainly about some bugs in the DISCUSS "protocol", and the somewhat unclear status of the IDNITS "specification". That's about BCP 9 (RFC 2026), not about BCP 32 (RFC 2606), let alone BCP 47. > BCP 47 (full of MAY's and SHOULD's) Arguably tons of BCP 14 (RFC 2119) key words might obscure the really important points, but that's another topic - it is difficult enough to keep 2026 vs. 2606 apart in this discussion. BTW, working on 2606bis I stumbled over <http://rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3406>. > A sad day for IETF in my book. Well, I thought Dave's jokes were funny, but that's a matter of taste. The serious question is to what degree the IESG or individual ADs can de jure or de facto force authors to jump through hoops. Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf