Looking through your summary of the LC comments, it appears that there is
considerable sentiment to publish this document as Informational rather than
as a BCP. Yet the new revision still says "Intended Status: BCP".
> [dbh: this document went to great lengths to say that it was NOT
> prescribing a Management Considerations requirement. sigh]
If this document were to proceed as a BCP, the following text could be
interpreted by an AD as license to require a "Management Considerations"
section:
"Any decision to make a Management Considerations section a mandatory
publication requirement for IETF documents is the responsibility of
the IESG, or specific area directors, or working groups, and this
document avoids recommending any mandatory publication requirements."
Since assigning responsibilities to the IESG is presumably out of scope of
this document, why not shorten this sentence to:
"This document avoids recommending any mandatory publication
requirements"
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf