--On Thursday, April 2, 2020 13:15 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I read the draft and I support it. > > Thanks, Bob. > >> One nit: Should it say that it updates BCP10? > > I think it should not, but should be its own BCP. > > We need a broader effort to update BCP 10, but this is a > one-time exception. Publishing it as a BCP is a process > formality, but sets no precedent and won't apply after this > year's NomCom is seated. I think it would be wrong for it to > formally update BCP 10. Barry, lLet me try an alternate theory out on you. First, however temporarily, this is a clarifying update to RFC 8713. Regardless of what decisions are made about BCP numbers, that update should be noted in the draft to make the thread clear and so, at least during the several months (or perhaps close to a year if there is a recall effort) in which this procedure is active and relevant, any effort to look up the topics covered by 8713 provides a clear path to this specification. I think, given that, treating it as part of BCP 10 follows, but I don't think it makes a lot of difference as long as the "updates" thread is clear. I don't think the "updates" relationship can be avoided. When the first sentence in Section 3 of the I-D says: The following text modifies, for the 2020-2021 NomCom selection only, the first two paragraphs (quoted above) of Section 4.14 of BCP 10 [RFC8713]: That is about as clear a candidate for "updating" (in this case 8713) as I've seen in some time. I do recognize what I think is your concern about BCP 10, but it seems to me that is easily handled: when the more permanent fix (the "[an]other update to BCP 10 [that] will be necessary..." comes along, it formally obsoletes this temporary document, making clear that the emergency interpretation no longer applies and specifying what does. Move it to Historic too, if that seems sensible. And, if having a dead document as part of BCP 10 bothers people. remove it at that time. Just a thought... john
