On Nov 29, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > +1 > > > On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: > >> 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' You stopped the excerpt from 2026 too soon on both ends; "the community's best current thinking on a statement of principle". Ron already said that the community didn't agree on a clear "best current thinking", and the document very clearly says that this is meant to be a new allocation of addresses, not "a statement of principle". If the IESG wants to weasel around the actual words in RFC 2026, that's fine: this wouldn't be the first time. However, there is also an opportunity to be more honest and call it a Proposed Standard. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf