OK, so basically changes in the standards track: promotion demotion (e.g., to Historic) I can even see changing informational de-facto or individual standards to standards-track. What makes NO sense is a BCP. If it wasn't a BCP when it was issued (even if there was no such thing), then it isn't a BCP now. If you want a BCP now, then open the can of worms and have the discussion on content. This whole thing, however, is based on the ridiculous goal of retaining an RFC number - numbers that we NEVER assume we can retain for even the most ubiquitous of standards. Joe On 8/11/2015 2:13 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > I disagree with this as an absolute statement > > there are times, not all that often but actual cases, where a technical RFC has been progressed > on the standards track without creating a new RFC > > it does take developing information about implementations etc, bit that info does not go into a RFC > > Scott > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/11/2015 2:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> There is no end-run. The IESG might conclude from the discussion that there >>> is no rough consensus to reclassify the RFC. >> >> IMO, reclassifying an existing RFC that isn't to "Historic" is an end-run. >> >> Joe >> >