Re: BCP97bis

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Mon, 11 April 2022 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1183A094A for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JNQv-QDeHFDo for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D8F03A091B for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w128so8276539vkd.3 for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gmLPzocFfPQu5n33vl//nljWyxnWKNBm9Ur8QvzOdWQ=; b=AAXLxdKeo4nqq2pZxsrLm1uaj2puhC4B20rwcPeZ2iTT0m8/8uFSHjE3hP6/iMznwR leH5eK8Gn7u+kbEl9VPYm/Ii6ZBbY7Xd8H2JT746HVZGG3kU+QOx+Q6i/xQVe4EUX0lo awssl616T7MZCO3oJ44WEN96SLGv1Q+lQ4lvRwX87QFBNWKxgogHM9KXZ3B+kyAfoWwr LzpD6oH8YbXUXCFxjDs6de0UAHrZYH1aneSU/QVyA4SGGgykNw1uLQQ/lRahpx6Fjfgo 8UC+IcIDXfS0wYS/hag6c7j42JEnD3sIdtpbky35NrdhYCzXN0bUBBeJ1FCvkKrfWGrW YVlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gmLPzocFfPQu5n33vl//nljWyxnWKNBm9Ur8QvzOdWQ=; b=b1tJyfCfJjWYx0qD2jgH+xMRvGIcfcyEaqlSSMV26qdOtuD4QfVRpYPHn9k1FqQr5y JJ6xfDOkqb8tpA/0kTXTmguuze7dhSAjbUwveZmlK5YzdVOp7/AdcaL8xsP/GAjxo4Qh V3P5BEvADvccNqCDLR54q7GWTXKVpDvURyG33wfxEa1s4I/RObQvNpQy9SFCEwD1ClVa R+zGoJNGJ8YZMXheW1UMZDc6dsTR4nFMzk7FRsDtkfy99hYCdSFrH8YrT2F3+ccwxqUR GMxOQaen24eEbjGIUn8aWVJ4uvJfL4qhlySu7mhkhC4S3UpNCujmcO1lU1d8YmE0YJN2 9ESg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301uSQTaZxhbfzSQnnuv3YUE/pxaXuijNeCBQbl6SP3JRH62tgU ecO7zG6J23bYIXOuEDtpqhzR3ElWKxu6JnueieIHq438eCw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzLYzdAQ8bEQSeavMl2o4kQaQYfuDuu2CVJkJlvPtaqLv+wyvUufhw3WCPBtMNs0OxdcT58gGAlhjHv7jxbDjw=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:94c9:0:b0:331:141d:13b0 with SMTP id w192-20020a1f94c9000000b00331141d13b0mr11074600vkd.18.1649717202739; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:46:31 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Cc: ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d9679905dc68b7ce"
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, 11 Apr 2022 22:46:49 -0000

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 <> 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.