[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?
all informational.
Marc.
-- Tuesday, April 27, 2004 16:17:07 +0300 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
wrote/a ecrit:
> 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)
>
>
>
------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------