Subject: Definitions, names, and confusion

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:01:37 -0500

In recent discussion of a proposed replacement of a BCP RFC,
a couple of problems have reappeared:

1. There seems to be a fairly wide misunderstanding of what
   BCP RFCs are supposed to cover.  Part of the problem is that
   "Best Current Practice" isn't a terribly good name for the
   sort of administrative procedures and policies that BCPs
   actually address. Many individuals apparently believe that
   discussions of how to administer user accounts and the like
   are suitable for BCP.  It is clear from the RFC 2026 discussion
   that that isn't what BCP RFCs are about -- for those who bother
   to read 2026.  Reinforcing the misinterpretation are comments
   referring to "Next-Best Current Practice" and/or "Worst Current
   Practice".  I suspect that there would be some resistance to
   changing the term "BCP" itself, so the only solution to this
   problem seems to lie in better education w.r.t. the true
   purpose and scope of BCP.

2. There seems to be a broad and deep lack of understanding of
   and appreciation for the importance of backwards compatibility.
   In searching the entire on-line collection of RFCs for an
   authoritative definition and in-depth discussion of the issue,
   I found none.  I believe the IAB could provide a much-needed
   service to the Internet Community by developing such a
   definition and explanation, possibly including it in a revision
   of RFC 1958, ideally with BCP (rather than Informational)
   status.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:10:33 +0100

>    purpose and scope of BCP.

actually the BCP label has multiple, largely disjunct areas of coverage.

I once (many years back) suggested splitting the categories into 
Recommended Internet Practices and Directives for Oversight and 
Administration, but the acronyms didn't survive the laugh test....

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:22:04 +0100

>Administration, but the acronyms didn't survive the laugh test....

I suppose this is not only the laugh test but the consistency test; both 
also are using words of authority ("Recommeded" and "Directive").

A BCP definition makes it a cultural/procedural equivalent to an accepted 
Standard.
This is why I proposed "Documented Best Practices" (DCP) and a "Suggested 
Best Practice" (SCP) as simple mnemonics to compare with the "for 
information" and usual proposition concepts the Common Practice area is not 
permitted.

jfc