Eric Gray wrote: > The issue I have with either formulation is that BCP 32 > currently means "RFC 2606 or its successors" - hence either > formulation is redundant. +1 The ID-checklist can reference RFC 2606, and updating it to 2606bis later is no obstacle. That is no general recipe: For an RFC 4646 vs. BCP 47 reference there are some technical details to consider, especially if those references are in a stable non-IETF document. But IMO the "checklist" and "BCP 32" are both supposed to be harmless documents, and not designed to help with the in various ways special 2821bis case. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf