there was discussion & revisions in both cases but I agree that there were more in the case of 2804 Scott > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >