On 12/08/2015 06:20, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 8/11/2015 9:56 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> I would propose that the new BCP be the set of 1984 and RFC2804 (which is >> also informational). >> I also think that this would be proceedurally make more sense. My recollection is that the 1995/96 debate that led to RFC 1984 was virtually unanimous, but the consensus for RFC 2804 was quite a bit rougher. >> -- >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > Has anyone considered the potential to revise this document properly (as > it should be) and then issue it (and any additional documents) as "BCP > 1984"? > > If kitsch is what you're after, that would serve the purpose without > this silly end-run around process. There is no end-run. The IESG might conclude from the discussion that there is no rough consensus to reclassify the RFC. In which case, yes, developing "BCP 1984" would be a cute response. But that would be a separate discussion. Brian