Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13/08/15 22:31, Pete Resnick wrote: > >> It should take all of an hour to rewrite this into a draft that doesn???t >> sound like a joint opinion of the leadership. > > I think it's really great that someone can actively participate in > the IETF for many years and serve terms on the IAB and IESG and still > produce statements like that that are a real masterpiece of unfounded > but boundless optimism and naivety:-) I wouldn't describe Pete as "naive"... > While it might only take one person one hour to craft new text, > that is utterly irrelevant here, sort of like saying that doing a > hard thing is easy because all you have to do is start. Nonetheless, many wise men (and women) have repeated the saying, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." I find it discouraging that so many folks here have spent hours posting, "Taking that first step would be stupid!" > I think it's been said before but the answer to you (with which > I know you disagree) is that the resulting text wouldn't really be > any better, That depends on what we're trying to accomplish! If all we want is to "feel-good" about saying RFC1984 was important then and still is important today, then reclassifying as BCP is by definition better (because we avoid saying anything which could possibly be interpreted as contradicting some minescule part of it. But if we mean to influence folks which are in a position to act, then almost anything shorter would be better. (IMHO) Hopefully, many of us can agree that almost anything that Pete wrote _would_ be shorter and better for _that_ purpose. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>