Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps (Filtering and Rate Limiting Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure) to BCP

[Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>]

OK. I will progress it as informational.

              -r


Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ron Bonica wrote:
> 
> 
>>Folks,
>>
>>The last call has ended and AFAIKS, this was the only comment. Would the
>>authors object to publishing this document as INFORMATIONAL? If not, we
>>can proceed immediately. If so, we need to work through the issue.
>>
> 
> 
> I'm 'ok' with informational, since I had thought that was what it was
> intended to be in the beginning. I understand that 'BCP' could be applied
> (as relayed to me by an IAB person) since this is a 'best common practice
> for vendors to comply with'. I suppose I agree that the proposal is to
> propose 'best common practices' for equipment... so from that standpoint a
> 'BCP' would apply.
> 
> I think that Barry's original issue (and I hope he tells me I'm
> wrong/right) was that 'BCP' (to me as well originally) meant 'what
> operators do on a common basis' or 'best common practice for operators of
> the said thing'.
> 
> So, for me, either works.
> 
> 
>>                                Ron
>>
>>
>>Barry Greene (bgreene) wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand "BCP." Information RFC yes. Something that can be use
>>>for requirements yes. But Best Common Practice? How is an operator's "I
>>>wish my equipment can do this in my network" become a BCP?
>>>
>>>IESG - I think we are abusing the BCP system. It states:
>>>
>>>   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."
>>>
>>>Which means we should be going through the same lifecycle of document
>>>status as the standards track.
>>>
>>>What we are getting now is the equivelent of a straight to Internet
>>>Standard status.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org]
>>>>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:34 PM
>>>>To: IETF-Announce
>>>>Cc: opsec@ops.ietf.org
>>>>Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps (Filtering
>>>>and Rate Limiting Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure) to BCP
>>>>
>>>>The IESG has received a request from the Operational Security
>>>>Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure WG (opsec) to
>>>>consider the following document:
>>>>
>>>>- 'Filtering and Rate Limiting Capabilities for IP Network
>>>> Infrastructure '
>>>>  <draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps-08.txt> as a BCP
>>>>
>>>>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>>>>solicits final comments on this action.  Please send
>>>>substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by
>>>>2007-06-25. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to
>>>>iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>>>>beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>>
>>>>The file can be obtained via
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsec-filter-ca
>>>>ps-08.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
>>>>w_id&dTag=13825&rfc_flag=0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>IETF-Announce mailing list
>>>>IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>