RFC 2223bis publication

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> 
  *> Since it was last called to be a BCP, I'm curious as to the decision
  *> to go back to info (since the decision to go for BCP originally was
  *> presumably also made after considering the info vs. BCP question). How
  *> has the thinking changed since the original decison? (I'm not
  *> necessarily objecting, just wanting to understand.)
  *> 

Thomas,

And we are happy to explain.

When the decision was originally made, we went back and forth on it
with Harald.  We sort of preferred the tradition of Informational, and
frankly, I always thought that (mis-)using the BCP category for
administrative documents is a bit peculiar.  However, we agreed with
Harald on the desirability of a Last Call, to ensure that people
read and commented on it.  Harald pointed out that it was a little
unusual to Last Call an Informational document, so we agreed to go
with a BCP Last Call.

Well, we did that, it worked well, and we think the process was served.
But since BCP *is* a little strange for the RFC Editor document, and
since it replaces an Informational document, we decided that the
best course would be to go ahead and publish it as Informational.
We are frankly surprised that anyone cares.  In fact, I think we
ALL have more important issues to take care of...

There. That's all there is.  Really.  No conspiracy.

Bob



  *> Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU> writes:
  *> 
  *> > The modified text has been republished twice, as announced at the IETF
  *> > plenary.  We have had no feedback; if people have further problems,
  *> > they will presumably raise them, and we will of course address them.
  *> 
  *> The above argues that the community is happy with the current
  *> document. If so, why not BCP?
  *> 
  *> > RFC 2223bis will NEVER be finished, but we DO need to take a checkpoint.
  *> 
  *> I do agree with this!!!
  *> 
  *> Thomas
  *>