more...
Ben Campbell wrote:
more pruning...
On Oct 10, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
On Oct 10, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Miki HASEBE wrote:
[...]
This version backs away from "recommending" the "hints" I reference in
item 2 above, and now correctly references the essential correction
draft in item 1. It seems to me that this version steps further back
from recommending specific practices than the previous version--thus I
still wonder why it is a BCP rather than an informational.
I've kept the draft's intended track as it is and related text
unchanged,
because it's still undecided whether it is going to be BCP or
Informational.
I'll follow AD's judgment.
Okay, that is reasonable. While the ADs certainly have the final say
in the matter, I would suggest that if the purpose is to describe
race conditions that can occur, this would be an informational. On
the other hand, if the purpose is to suggest that implementors take
specific actions to avoid or mitigate the conditions, then it might
be a BCP.
I can still go either way on this, but would like to get it nailed
down, because it influences the language we need to use.
I think I lean toward BCP so that we *can* make real recommendations
between legal alternatives. Even then there are those "hints" where
IMO there is disagreement over what is best. So in those cases there
may continue to be just discussion, without recommendation.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the idea of this being a BCP. My issue
was that it didn't seem like it made many real recommendations, with the
possible exception of BYE glare conditions scenario. Given that the
majority of this is descriptive text, if it does stay a BCP then it
would be good to explicitly distinguish concrete recommendations between
said legal alternatives.
Good point. I think the exercise is to go through and tag (with some
sort of language) each roughly normative statement as either a
recommended best practice or a reiteration/inference from a spec.
If there are a meaningful number of best practices then its good for it
to be a BCP.
For example, would you characterize the tweaks to the state machine as
recommendation or description?
Well, I think some of the added detail reflects description of unclear
but unambiguous inferences, and so is just description. But perhaps some
of it reflects choices among legal alternatives and so is
recommendation. But it may require some tweaking to make that clear.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
