Re: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Pekka,

I believe is very difficult to take a general rule, even when talking only about scenario documents, and even when I could agree, in general, with your rationale.

I will like to heard the rational from the authors. I think will be useful (I know they have actually used in the document BCP).

We have a similar problem with the rest of the WG (and some individual) documents, since a long time ago, and we have talked about some options in the last meeting, but now sure if the decision and process is clear enough.

I think looking to all this we can take a more clear and open decision.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?


> Hi,
> 
> (co-chair hat on)
> 
> During the IESG review of the 3GPP analysis document there was a 
> comment wondering its intended BCP category:
> 
> =====
> >    The scope of this Best Current Practices document is to analyze and 
> >    solve the possible transition scenarios in the 3GPP defined GPRS 
> >    network
> 
> Scenarios aren't things you *solve*; they are things you *describe*. I
> would see no objection to this as an Informational, but I think it
> (and its future companion documents from v6ops) are hardly BCPs. There
> is surely no current practice on which to base the assertion that this
> draft describes the Best.
> =====
> 
> The initial plan (which never had much justification) had been to
> publish the Scenarios documents as Informational, and analysis
> documents (describing the best understanding of the recommended
> deployment approaches) as BCP(s).
> 
> As far as I can understand, the reason why BCP seems inappropriate is 
> because the documents might not be for example:
>  1) not clearly describing _current_ practice (i.e., when there has 
>     not yet been sufficient deployment, but only analysis), or
> 
>  2) not clearly describing _best_ practice (i.e., if the document is 
>     not sufficiently detailed to pick among the alternatives, etc.)
> 
> On the other hand, BCP would seem appropriate if the description is
> detailed enough, and/or current enough so that we can justify that it
> is actually already both a _current_ and _best_ practice.  In a way,
> BCP also sends a stronger message to the community on the
> recommendations (whether that is relevant or necessary is another
> question).
> 
> Now, as there can be arguments for both ways, it would be useful to
> see if there are preferences about this in the WG:
> 
>  a) continue with BCP category,
> 
>  b) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational and consider the rest in 
>     case-by-case basis (whether Info or BCP).  Some other analysis 
>     documents may or may not fall better under the BCP category, or
> 
>  c) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational; take the rest to 
>     informational as well.
> 
> Opinions?  a), b), or c)?
> 
> (co-chair hat off)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.