Le 12/03/2020 à 00:03, Martin Thomson a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 06:41, Salz, Rich wrote:
Personally I would rather see this document switch to
informational and move forward with publication. I don’t think
the label “BCP” makes much of a difference, the point is just to
document practices to make it easier for IETF WGs to get their
work done. I would be curious what the WG thinks.
We do think this is the best ways to do things, but if the BCP
label has people tied up in knots, it's better to publish than
delay and be right. I can live with informational.
What I value is getting consensus on some best practices, that I hope
will eventually become common. An informational document achieves
that goal as effectively as a BCP.
Hell, if it weren't for the fact that publication as RFC is a
codification of community consensus, this entire process would have
been unnecessary.
Wth all due respect, and with thanks to private advice I found valuable
in ly work.
But what do you mean by the above phrase?
Why dont you publishs that document as a personal article somewhere,
e.g. on researchgate, with a DOI number. DOI is also a three letter
word like RFC, also is set in stone, also does not accept modifications.
Alex
I could have just done more presentations to WG
chairs. But I value that consensus. Which is why I'm taking the
time to deal with objections of the sort that Warren raises.
_______________________________________________ Ietf-and-github
mailing list Ietf-and-github@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
