Folks,
I think that our time would be used much more productively if we discussed
whether to make the allocation or not. The proposed status of the document is a
secondary issue.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:47 AM
> To: IESG IESG
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
> >
> >> to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do
> something
> >> it is not required that the process actually be in use before the
> BCP is adopted
> >>
> >> as Mike O'Dell once said, if BCPs had to reflect what was actually
> being done we
> >> could never have a BCP defining good manners on the IETF mailing
> list
> >>
> >> see RFC 2026 - it says
> >> The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
> >> standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
> A
> >> BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
> >> standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
> >> community can define and ratify the community's best current
> thinking
> >> on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best
> way
> >> to perform some operations or IETF process function.
> >>
> >> i.e, the IETF's "best current thinking" on the "best way" to do
> something - not
> >> 'describing the way something is done'
>
> You stopped the excerpt from 2026 too soon on both ends; "the
> community's best current thinking on a statement of principle". Ron
> already said that the community didn't agree on a clear "best current
> thinking", and the document very clearly says that this is meant to be
> a new allocation of addresses, not "a statement of principle".
>
> If the IESG wants to weasel around the actual words in RFC 2026, that's
> fine: this wouldn't be the first time. However, there is also an
> opportunity to be more honest and call it a Proposed Standard.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
