Re: not BCP ?

[George Jones <gmj@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, George Jones wrote:
> > Neal Ziring (note taker) said you mentioned that you thought there
> > were reasons the opsec draft could not be BCP ?  If you're still
> > around, look me up to discuss...if not, email (maybe CC opsec list)
>
> The draft has:
>
>    This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
>    all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to
>    produce derivative works is not granted.
>
> .. such documents cannot be published as other than Informational (or
> Experimental) RFC.  Such documents cannot even be adapted as WG work
> items;

Right.  That can be changed at the appropriate time.

Thanks,
---George