I submitted a new shepherd writeup, based on this and what I found on the list. Gorry > David and Gorry, > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> My concerns is that BCP are commonly used by ADs to enforce >> compliance. >> > >> So I am wondering why this document is not just Informational? >> > > >> > > AFAIR, the WG wanted it to be BCP to be a stronger recommendation to >> > > protocol designers than would be an Informational doc. >> > > >> > Yes the document was marked BCP on 2011-01-26 after WG discussion and >> > advice from our ADs, but this was not based on offering advice to IANA >> (as >> > in RFC 6335), but rather guidance to protocol and applications >> designers >> > needing to use transport ports. >> >> I concur with Gorry's summary, and believe that BCP status is >> appropriate. >> I suggest teeing this concern (whether BCP vs. Informational is the >> right >> status for this sort of guidance document) up to the IESG for a >> decision. >> >> In its ordinary English (dictionary) meaning, "best current practice" >> certainly applies to this draft. OTOH, the IETF notion of BCP has a >> rather specific meaning and some definite implications in practice. >> FWIW, >> Alexey is not the only person who's made note of that concern wrt this >> draft. >> >> In my view, the IESG owns the decision (and decision criteria) on what >> should vs. should not be a BCP. I think we should expand the draft >> writeup >> to note this concern (BCP vs. Informational status) as one that needs >> IESG >> attention and ask our ADs to ensure that it does get suitable IESG >> attention. >> >> Much as I prefer to resolve open issues before IESG Evaluation, in this >> case, >> I think the IESG needs to make a decision, and it is within reason for >> us >> to >> ask them to do so ;-). >> >> Thanks, >> --David (as Gorry's tsvwg WG co-chair) >> > > > That sounds exactly right. I'll wait until you are happy with the shepherd > writeup before I proceed. > > Spencer >