Re: draft-ietf-opsec--infrastructure-security-00.txt

[Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>]

At 09:34 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, Darrel Lewis \(darlewis\) wrote:
> Please post the attached draft as
> draft-ietf-opsec-infrastructure-security-00.txt
>
> -D
>
> Darrel lewis
> dlewis@cisco.com

We would like to ask the working group for comments regarding
whether this document should be "informational" or "BCP".

Right now the document specifies "Intended status: Informational".
However, Darrel has suggested privately (to the WG chairs) that
he would prefer to aim towards "Best Current Practice" (BCP --
see section 5 of RFC2026), and the introduction states that the
document describes best current practices for implementing
Service Provider network infrastructure protection for network
elements.


For example, section 5 of 2026 specifies:

        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.

and a bit lower down in the same section:

        ...since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a
        great variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good
        user service requires that the operators and administrators of the
        Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.

Thus to some extent the question of "should this document be
published as a BCP" is pretty much the same as "does this
document define and/or ratify the community's best current
thinking on the best way to perform some (basic security)
operations in networks".

Thanks, Ross