to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do something it is not required that the process actually be in use before the BCP is adopted as Mike O'Dell once said, if BCPs had to reflect what was actually being done we could never have a BCP defining good manners on the IETF mailing list see RFC 2026 - it says The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function. i.e, the IETF's "best current thinking" on the "best way" to do something - not 'describing the way something is done' this has always been the case - e.g., RFC 6410 described a new standards track not the (not well used) existing standards track Scott On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > >> On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus supporting the draft, it also did not display consensus against the draft. Therefore, I will submit the draft to the full IESG for its consideration at its December 1 teleconference. The draft will be published as a BCP if a sufficient number of IESG members ballot "Yes" or "No Objection", and if no IESG member ballots "Discuss". > > Regardless of whether or not IESG members support the allocation in this document, it is *not* a BCP. There is no current practice in this area; if there was, any of the /10s being used could be used. RFC 5735 is a BCP because the addressed listed were already known to be used for the purposes described; draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request is, as its title says, a request for a new allocation. > > If the IESG decides to publish this document, please be forthright and call it a Proposed Standard. > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf