I disagree with this change of status. Documents that refer to this RFC informationally would all need to be considered for potential impact. This does not seem to be an appropriate change. If a BCP were appropriate, a bis revision should be the mechanism for upgrading the impact of the content. Joe > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Last Call: Recognising RFC1984 as a BCP > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:13:06 -0700 > From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> > Reply-To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make > the following status changes: > > - RFC1984 from Informational to Best Current Practice > (IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet) > > The supporting document for this request can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice/ > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2015-09-07. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The affected document can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1984/ > > IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice/ballot/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag