Re: BCP or RFC references

["Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com>]

Eric Gray wrote:
 
> The issue I have with either formulation is that BCP 32
> currently means "RFC 2606 or its successors" - hence either
> formulation is redundant.

+1  The ID-checklist can reference RFC 2606, and updating
it to 2606bis later is no obstacle.   That is no general
recipe:  For an RFC 4646 vs. BCP 47 reference there are
some technical details to consider, especially if those
references are in a stable non-IETF document.

But IMO the "checklist" and "BCP 32" are both supposed to
be harmless documents, and not designed to help with the
in various ways special 2821bis case.

 Frank

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