Subject: [newtrk] Meeting discussion of ISDs- BCPs as core documents (outstanding)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:00:59 -0500

This is the third of several summaries of my notes from last
week's discussion of ISDs.   This note and subsequent ones cover
outstanding issues and areas that are still very much under
discussion (or where disagreements are known to exist).

At least conceptually, an ISD has some defining document at its
core, with other documents supplementing, supporting, modifying,
or updating it.  It is clear that standards track documents can
occupy that core and that any other sort of documents can be
included, either normatively or internationally, as
additional/supplemental documents.

Question: Can BCPs be core documents for ISDs, or do "current
practice" documents continue to belong in a different series.

Note that, at least for thinking about ISDs, we may need to
logically partition the BCP series.   We have, at least, the
following three sorts of documents published as BCPs:

	   -- IETF Process documents, such as RFC 2026/BCP 9.
	RFC 2026 which would clearly be a core document of an
	ISD, as illustrated by Scott's example I-D, if we allow
	BCPs as core documents at all.
	
	   -- Operational practices for the Internet.  These
	documents will often be incorporated into ISDs as
	supporting documents for some standards track core
	document(s), but might stand alone.
	
	   -- Profiles and applications of standards.  This
	third type, in particular, will often be replaced by
	listing, with qualifying text, in ISDs with the
	associated standards, rather than being separate BCPs.

The question above might possibly need different answers for
these three types of BCPs.

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:26:30 -0600

> these three types of BCPs.

I agree that the three categories would map into ISDs differently.

I might prefer to exclude the 2026-ish BCPs from the ISD mechanism, 
but I'm not sure what to do with them - given RFC 3933 (BCP 93), we 
may not move forward with process documents the same way we move 
forward with the other two categories.

Spencer 

.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:51:43 +0100

--On mandag, november 15, 2004 15:00:59 -0500 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> We have, at least, the

A fourth category is the "operational practices for an IANA registry 
associated with an ISD" - with the canonical example being the much-revised 
MIME registry document.

I think this is a clear case of "incorporated into ISD, unlikely to stand 
alone" - and then note that RFC 3066, language tags, is a BCP, and should 
be a core document of its own ISD, thus having contradicted myself :-)

                             Harald

.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:35:50 -0800

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I might prefer to exclude the 2026-ish BCPs from the ISD mechanism, but 
> I'm not sure what to do with them - given RFC 3933 (BCP 93), we may not 
> move forward with process documents the same way we move forward with 
> the other two categories.
> 
> Spencer

I would not expect that process documents are ISDs. They're for us, 
primarily, and if we don't know where to look, that's our fault ;-)

Joe