Subject: Re: BCP97bis

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:46:31 -0700

Since I'm about to post an update to this based on the thread last fall,
I'll start here:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:36 PM Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:

> So I’m notice that a single-author AD-sponsored BCP revision is getting a
> relatively lot amount of pushback on one particular area from a number of
> very experienced IETFers (to be clear: other than me).
>
>
>
> Perhaps an AD sponsoring a BCP written by another AD is not the best way
> forward for something that has such a broad impact.
>

Do you have a proposal for a venue where you feel this should be handled?
Maybe you're thinking GENDISPATCH?  I don't think this warrants its own
working group, but weirder things have happened.

I can't find it now, but I think I saw someone indicate that this sort of
processing isn't all that unusual for documents of this nature.

I also wouldn't characterize this thread overall as "pushback", but rather
a lot of background and reasonable feedback, some of which has resulted in
changes to the text.  I also wouldn't say it has consensus yet, but so goes
the process.

-MSK

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:08:36 +0000

Perhaps an AD sponsoring a BCP written by another AD is not the best way forward for something that has such a broad impact.

  *   Do you have a proposal for a venue where you feel this should be handled?  Maybe you're thinking GENDISPATCH?  I don't think this warrants its own working group, but weirder things have happened.

Yes it should go through a dispatch.

  *   I also wouldn't characterize this thread overall as "pushback", but rather a lot of background and reasonable feedback, some of which has resulted in changes to the text.  I also wouldn't say it has consensus yet, but so goes the process.

Out of curiosity, which consensus and how do you tell?