[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps-08.txt


On Jun 28, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Barry Greene (bgreene) wrote:


My issue is not with the document. My issue is with the jump to BCP
status. My issue is with a BROKEN IETF process around "BCPs." When
you read the process in IETF, BCP is ....

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.

Since this is in the working group, work the problem.

Submit the document as a "Proposed BCP" status. That is equivalent to
"Proposed Standard."


I think you're confusing the fact that Standards Track documents
have three maturity levels: Proposed Standard, Draft Standard and
Internet Standard.

BCP's are NOT Standards Track documents, the procedures
referenced in the text you provide above are expanded in Section
5.1 of RFC 2026, specifically:

[...]
   The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards.  The BCP
   is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the
   existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF
   Announce mailing list.  However, once the IESG has approved the
   document, the process ends and the document is published.  The
   resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the
   IETF.

   Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must
   undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this
document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures 
   in section 6.5.
[...]

So basically, the review process is the same initially, but the
three maturity levels don't exist.  As such, I don't understand
your concern?

When the IESG made the IETF Last Call they set the status
of the document to BCP, I believe this to be the right
classification.

-danny