Hi Pete,
At 11:57 17-07-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
requirements document in the sense that it is laying out
requirements for future protocol documents being developed by a WG;
it is a consensus document listing the requirements for the
operation and administration of a type of device. If that doesn't
fall within the 2nd paragraph of RFC 2026 section 5, I don't know what does.
I don't recall seeing an IPR disclosure on a BCP. Most new
Informational RFCs are also consensus documents. There are a few
Informational RFCs which lists requirements for operation and
administration. I don't think that this document should be BCP as
the status does not exercise the "must demonstrate at least two
independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing process".
Regards,
-sm