RE: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> 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
> :--)

Maybe that's because folks get ashamed of out-of-date BCPs but don't 
feel so strongly about Informationals? :)

In any case, Informationals can be updated as well as we gain 
experience; if the deployment is successful, it might actually be 
worth recycling the Informationals to BCPs after some years (if deemed 
necessary).

> > -----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)?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings