Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1135] IETF/LC something other than BCP?

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

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, September 21, 2005 8:54 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1135] IETF/LC something other than BCP?
>

> +1 in general, but...
>
> I'm.... confused.
>
> Are you recommending that draft-registry be published as a BCP but not
> "Obsoletes: 3066" until the matching draft is in some advanced state?

No.

> Or are you recommending that draft-registry be published as BCP and
> immediately Obsoletes: 3066, with the matching draft to follow?

Not exactly.
If the IESG would accept this, this would be my preference.

Otherwise, I believe it would be acceptable to defer publication
of the BCP until the matching draft was a Proposed Standard.
It's slated to be done in October, and there is currently only one
open issue on that document.  If folks think there is more work
to be done there (and I suspect there is) they'd better start working
on it.  (In a different thread.)

> If the former, wouldn't we have a potentially long interregnum period
> where both registries are operated (to the confusion of everyone)?

That's why I would NOT make such a recommendation.
That is why I consider it important to make it totally clear that
3066 is Obsoleted, and not merely Updated.

> If so, I again note the example I cited in the Last Call of RFC 3282
> (both it and RFC 3066 obsolete 1766, but on different days and for
> different purposes).
...

This supports my preference for "Obsoletes: 3066" on publication.
This is issue #1134 in https://rt.psg.com/ (user/password "ietf")

Randy




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