IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Manycouches] BCP # for draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting?

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 05 October 2021 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB183A0CDC for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vb-dGt0AqbbQ for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 06:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-f43.google.com (mail-ua1-f43.google.com [209.85.222.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 988FA3A0CD6 for <manycouches@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 06:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 64so14812026uab.12 for <manycouches@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 06:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZX4wJiguvFtIKqKWHgG+0aDv8FvRleYevs73Au6Dg+s=; b=Z7sn53eapVn4FonBSOJ1GqCIlylalcPQsO9LH0h+hwAsHlWrDFWDJ1m7iHuM1i5IDq hnSRCzQSlg68wF+C5AH6fiF5NuR6hO/xbdlWXNupxl+v6xFElQJOd3BbVF3SqqiXxZKL rqmEVdqBzy2pncRKtBGGX02iRxrHMkNM+HZZQzhb13m09i1XHG1NA31TCGC3ciALW+g4 1ZMilZL62x+nIAz5yZTlfMhjo6SIH8CgA4BZoSSGqNrF35NkvF9LKhUOK8uGzNuXguVt SldX9fH4zaAzlG1+qPYUKwtKKtmx9IUrDqmICZqf52mg0/xYNuy7HcJXoLATw5Hc9YGh /Byg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mLSXPDB2WI5+GHWc3CDRUziR6dzTccPifAtYVnNXrLgHpEUpm rdxHdPzadSg2N9vS1LzdnpfNUJ/qgvNfIr18zyI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzr9ewEoKr4KE4piGcQ/wAOA4/uAMu1JNFG639Oz109AjOvJlbz5ziO9CqUYJ6fhJMCjhw4pRUvl1x3DjC6bjo=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7382:: with SMTP id l2mr12021945uap.94.1633439693480; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 06:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxRkJUug58t73UKPRpdutzujsAg1WvG5G73pQLOwRDRPoA@mail.gmail.com> <86946798-f8b3-418c-6ef5-ad99d367f03b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <86946798-f8b3-418c-6ef5-ad99d367f03b@gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:14:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKpb5Vbg8iSWiXGDVZhrGewRH1yRJs2bHh-SqNEUHxrRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: shmoo <manycouches@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/3g3XAr_KhwsyqkcSTvsFmY2xR-o>
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] BCP # for draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting?
X-BeenThere: manycouches@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of remote meeting attendance and virtual IETF meetings, as well as for SHMOO working group" <manycouches.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manycouches/>
List-Post: <mailto:manycouches@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 13:14:59 -0000

Yes, there are a number of BCPs (and STDs) that consist of multiple
RFCs.  Another example is BCP 14, which used to be RFC 2119 and is now
that plus the update in RFC 8174 -- current use of BCP 14 needs both.

Citing the BCP (or STD) ensures a reference to whichever version is
current at the time of reading; citing the individual RFC(s) creates a
reference to what was current at the time of writing.  Which you want
to refer to will determine how you cite it.

Barry

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:00 AM Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sounds reasonable to group together these documents in a common unique
> place to find guidance about a same high-level topic.
>
> One point I'd mention too is that, this being the first time I hear
> about several RFCs being 'in' a single BCP, I wonder whether there will
> be an undesirable situation in which people refer to BCP226 and actually
> talk about another RFC than this cancel rule, thus a potential place for
> confusion.  Or maybe it's just me discovering this 'in' relationship for
> BCP RFCs.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 04/10/2021 à 17:21, Martin Duke a écrit :
> > Hi SHMOO,
> >
> > draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting (soon to be RFC 9137) needs a BCP
> > number.
> >
> > There are two sensible options I am aware of: - Stand by itself as
> > BCP 235. - Be grouped into BCP 226
> > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp226>, which is all about meeting
> > policies.
> >
> > I have no strong opinion on this, but if forced to decide I'd put it
> > in with 226. I'm happy to receive suggestions on this topic
> > (including some /other/ BCP in which this clearly fits.)
> >
> > Thanks Martin
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Manycouches mailing
> > list Manycouches@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> Manycouches@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email