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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Peter,

Peter Koch wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for that. There are words earlier in 2026 that seem to imply
one:one correspondence, but if we do it as part of BCP 101 I agree
it's better.

   Brian



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