Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think it's perfectly reasonable to publish a BCP for a one-time
>> variance. On the other hand I think it's a Very Bad Idea to invent a
>> lightweight variance procedure that allows for process exceptions that
>> aren't documented in the normal means, and which fragment the historical
>> record. Though I don't doubt anyone's intentions here, a lightweight
>> variance procedure will sooner or later inevitably be misused. Also,
>> it's never a great idea to hurriedly invent new process when doing so can
>> be avoided.
> If you read my draft, you'll notice that for all intents and purposes,
> all of
I read it now.
> the procedures of publishing a BCP are required anyway: It requires a written
> draft, a minimum 4-week last call, and a conclusion of consensus by the
> IESG. The only thing that is different is that it doesn't require publication
> as an RFC, addition to the BCP series, or an additional RFC or moving it to
> Historic when it no longer applies (because, as the draft says, it can't last
> longer than a year without actually publishing a BCP). So I don't see what
> the misuse vector you're seeing is.
I would be happier if the variance was recorded as more than an Internet-Draft.
I understand the desire not to issue an RFC/BCP, and certainly not to wait
for the RFC-EDITOR to process it. I suggest that the errata process be used.
In particular, should the document ever get revised, then the one-time
variance would get recorded as an appendix. If any other RFCs were published
as a result of the variance (i.e. if the variance was a suspension of some other
publication rule), then those documents would need to indicate this case.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
