IETF Logo Mail Archive

multi-RFC BCPs [Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt]

Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> Thu, 25 August 2005 20:24 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E8OH5-0005wf-7m; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:24:35 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E8LNI-0007Xn-Sy for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:18:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01004 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:18:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de ([129.70.136.245]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E8LNq-00020I-LX for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:19:24 -0400
Received: from grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.137.40]) by momotombo.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.12.11/8.12.11/TechFak/2005/05/30/sjaenick) with ESMTP id j7PHIaj0016721 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:18:36 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from localhost (pk@localhost) by grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id j7PHIaW16235 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:18:36 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200508251718.j7PHIaW16235@grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
X-Authentication-Warning: grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE: pk owned process doing -bs
X-Authentication-Warning: grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE: pk@localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:15:29 +0200." <430489F1.2090701@zurich.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16225.1124990275.1@grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:18:36 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:24:33 -0400
Subject: multi-RFC BCPs [Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I read the relevant bits of 2026 a couple of times, and I am pretty
> convinced that a BCP can only exist as a single RFC (which may or may not

section 5.1 of 2026 reads:

   A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been
   approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while
   retaining its RFC number(s).

which to me suggests multi-RFC BCPs are as fine as multi-RFC STDs.
Apart from that, it would make sense in terms of usability.

Unfortunately there is not yet any precedent but at least two precedents to
the contrary, where the updating or amending RFC received its own BCP number:

	RFC 2827, BCP 38 updated by RFC 3704, BCP 84
	RFC 2418, BCP 25 updated by RFC 3934, BCP 94 (more similar to the case
						      under discussion)

> be a bug, but that's what the text seems to say). So this needs to be a
> new BCP that updates the RFC 4071 version of BCP 101. You're correct that

Not the most important issue with this document, but please consider to
make 101 a bundle.

-Peter

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email