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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 05/10/2021 à 15:15, Salz, Rich a écrit :
>> Or maybe it's just me discovering this 'in' relationship for BCP
>> RFCs.
> 
> Seems like that is the case.  I guess you've never clicked on any of
> the links in the Note Well (https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/)
> since the first three BCP's are "groups"

Maybe there is a difference between groups.  The Note Well talks about 
BCP 79 first, if that is what you meant; this BCP79 seems to be a single 
RFC (8179) and, true, it obsoletes two other RFCs.  It is a group of a 
single RFC and many other obsoleted RFCs.

That kind of 'group' BCP79 seems different than this kind of BCP226 
which truly is made of several RFCs all valid at the same time.

In this kind of BCP226 group of all up-to-date RFCs (no obsolescence) 
one would make sure that one RFC is not telling something aspect 
contrary of another RFC in same group.  I.e. 
draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting should not say something contrary to 
RFC8718 or to RFC8719.

That is something difficult to assess, at least because there are said 
things and silent things.

When RFC8718 tells there are 3 criteria to meet (section 3.1 "Mandatory 
Criteria"), and is silent about criteria not to meet, then that might 
become an issue with consistency with draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting. 
To address it, maybe an Errata to RFC8718 could be made to add a 
reference to this draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting.

Or maybe this has already been addressed, or maybe it represents too 
much work to struggle with... not wanting to detail things to infinity 
either.

Alex

> 
> 
>