Re: [art] BCP190

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 7/23/19 11:21, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On the general topic, I don't think it's realistic nor wise
> to try always strictly enforce BCPs. BCP107 is a fine case
> in point - attempts by the SEC ADs over the years (including
> this former instance of the animal;-) haven't IMO made the
> Internet better in most cases - some yes, but mostly not, and
> while the general guidance is correct, being too strict with
> it is not, in the end, a good plan.


I think you're correct here. I also think that it's important that we 
agree where these BCPs get things wrong, and adjust them to reflect the 
conclusions the community has reached. If BCP 107 needs occasional 
overrides, a minor revision of that document to explain that point would 
seem in order, so as to save heartburn for all parties further down the 
road.

I'll repeat what I've said to the TRANS chairs on this topic: if we can 
get an agreement in principle on the ART mailing list that BCP 190 is 
too strict and needs to be updated to allow the kinds of exceptions 
envisioned by TRANS, then I'm willing to clear as soon as consensus in 
support of that proposition becomes evident, even in advance of a draft 
that proposes the concrete updates to the BCP. Absent that, the decision 
on the TRANS mailing list looks too much like one working group 
discarding established IETF consensus without input from the appropriate 
stakeholders.

/a