On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:14:13PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. I'm confused at how the errata process would even be used for this (discounting for the sake of argument that it would be a clear abuse of the errata process)... -Ben > 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 [ >
