RE: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

I support (a).  Reason.  BCPs are more easily updated as we learn
Informational lasts forever.  Caveat is IETF is working on all of this
process so my rationale may be a moot point.  Well I we did replace the
base API info multiple times??   I just like the sound of BCP I guess
:--)

Regards,
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of juha.wiljakka@nokia.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 6:03 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?
> 
> 
> Hi!
> 
> My opinion is c.
> 
> Cheers,
> 	 -Juha W.-
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of ext Pekka Savola
> 
>  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)?
> 
> 
>