--On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 19:32 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, John, and thanks for the thoughtful note. I agree with > the sense of everything you say, but the bottom line on all of > it is that any effort to do a proper BCP can -- of course -- > update anything that came before it, and always could. I'm > happy to say that explicitly here, so I suggest that both of > your points can be handled together this way: > > OLD > precedent: another update to BCP 10 will be necessary > to address future eligibility, as there will be time > for proper community work on such an update. > NEW > precedent: an update to BCP 10 will be necessary to > address future eligibility, as there will be time for > proper community work on such an update. That update > could change any part of the BCP 10 process, including > anything specified in this document. > END > > What do you think? Barry, Thanks for the quick response. The above works for me and solves the main problem I was concerned about. It does, however, reinforce the notion that this document is "part of the BCP 10 process" and hence that it should be part of BCP 10, however temporarily. thanks again, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
