Hi - > From: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips at quest.com> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:35 PM > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #938] should introduction allude to intendedbcp status? > > There is no way that I know of to insert this value except by editing the generated document by hand. It's not worth the effort. > I'm not sure that I would *want* to insert it. We allude only to RFC status in the document. > Surely RFC 3066's successor, whatever track the IESG puts it on, will obsolete the current > BCP 47 too. Debate about whether to pursue the STD track or not might be interesting to > have in this WG, but has no practical effect on the contents of the document except for > that one phrase, no? And in practice, the track the document follows has no impact on > what we put into it either. All true. That's why the comment is marked "rejected". As I wronte earlier: > The abstract already (-01) states "This document obsoletes RFC 3066 (which > replaced RFC 1766)." That's the important part, which I believe satisfies > the heart of the comment. Whether this ultimately becomes a BCP or not is > up to the IESG; we as a WG will only make a recommendation. The BCP vs STD debate isn't really ours to have. We can make a recommendation when we pass it to the IESG, but the decision is theirs to make. Since the technical content is already out there as a BCP, I think we'd need a fairly compelling argument to ask for something else. In any case, I'd prefer to defer discussion of BCP/STD until all other issues are resolved, since it really doesn't impact the content of the document. Randy, ltru co-chair _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.