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

["Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>]

>  Since this is in the working group, work the problem. 
>  
>  Submit the document as a "Proposed BCP" status. That is equivalent
>  to "Proposed Standard."

Right now the IETF process does not have a status of "proposed BCP". It
is not up to the OPSEC working group to decide to change the process and
create another status for documents. Of course, if there is consensus
that the process *should* have a possible status of "proposed BCP", then
this is something that we could propose to the general area of the IETF.
My understanding is that the IETF Chair (currently Russ Housley) is the
"AD" overseeing IETF process issues. 

I am a bit sympathetic that the BCP series is not really equivalent to
the standards track series since we don't have the same three steps for
documents. However, I haven't heard a lot of arguments that we need to
add more steps to the general process of getting RFCs out (even BCP
RFCs), and slowing down the IETF process is not something that I strive
for. 

Barry: Are you seriously proposing that we *should* have a status of 
"Proposed BCP"? If so, then are two steps sufficient (proposed BCP and
BCP), or would you want to have the process completely parallel to the
standards track process (Proposed BCP, Draft BCP, and BCP)? 

Ross