Hiya, Just on this bit, as it seems less widely known... On 18/07/2019 22:00, john heasley wrote: > BCP numbers are static? An RFC that supersedes 7525 and becomes BCP > will also be 195? I see no indication of this in 2026: thus I assume > it will receive a new number. Nope, it'll still be BCP195, if that's what the community want at that time, which'd I guess be the default assumption for a 7525bis. BCP9 [1] says: "A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while retaining its RFC number(s)." BCP9 itself currently consists of about 8 RFCs. So we can add RFCs to a BCP. We can also subtract RFCs from a BCP too. So you could think of the change you mention above as adding 7525bis to BCP195 while at the same time subtracting 7525:-) I'd guess BCP10 [2] is a good example of one that has undergone such changes a few times, for example RFC6859 used to be, but is no longer, part of BCP10. [3] Bottom line is that yes, the BCP series already has some, but by no meals all, of the flexibility we're after in this thread. Another perhaps also less widely known consequence is that it's a better idea to reference BCP195 in other RFCs rather than RFC7525. Cheers, S. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp9 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp10 [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6859
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
