Hi Toerless, hi Brian, Just from the top of my head, I would consider BCP as appropriate type as the document(s) describe operational considerations to enable or support BRSKI and BRSKI components. The standard track from my understanding would target more the completeness of the technical description specifically to ensure interoperability between different manufacturer's products. My two cents.
Best regards Steffen > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 5:49 AM > To: anima@ietf.org > Subject: [Anima] Re: BRSKI considerations and BCP ? > > On 01-Jul-25 14:50, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > Was wondering: If we are writing explicit requirements into the BRSKI > > considerations documents, should they not rather be BCP instead of > > informational ? I must admit i am completely confused about when to > > choose BCP versus informational when you do use RFC2119 language. > > > > I am noting that RFC8504 is BCP whereas RFC 1122 is Standard. > > I guess BCP is now preferred over standards track when it comes to > > requirements which are really more of a profile than a protocol, but > > that's as far as my guessing goes. > > I think that's correct, but whatever you choose, at least one Last Call > reviewer will > disagree :-). In any case, it's easier to include the BCP14 language now than > to > retrofit it later. > > Brian > > > > > > Any better insight ? > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
