Re: BCP97bis

Carsten Bormann <> Mon, 18 October 2021 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF263A1210 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHv5LPc6-DdS for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E1ED3A0902 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HXnrD2Hl3z2xHL; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:02:36 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:02:35 +0200
Cc: ietf <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:02:50 -0000

> This procedure is not to be used if the proper step is to move the document to which the reference is being made into the appropriate category. It is not intended as an easy way out of normal process. Rather, the procedure is intended for dealing with specific cases where putting particular documents into the required category is problematic and unlikely ever to happen.

So does this now end the practice of certain areas to publish a normative specification as Informational first, and then do the proper vetting (but with a weaker process) of the document at the time it is first used in a downref?

The third level of maturity that this creates (pre-PS :-) is actually quite useful to give specifications some time to mature before we fully commit to them.
It is a variant of what Experimental was meant to be, but that label has acquired a mostly pejorative meaning, just as

  “We are not sure this is a good idea”

can mean that you are really just not sure (so you make it Informational in the above undocumented process) or that a sizable part of the community thinks it will turn out not to be a good idea (so you make it Experimental).

Grüße, Carsten