ISSUE: Document subseries name for IETF Administration

John C Klensin john-ietf at
Sun Jun 15 02:32:31 CEST 2003


I've been studying the most recent draft of 2223bis
(draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-05.txt) and it is becoming clear to
me that having a document with as much procedural impact as that
one published as "informational" is a distortion.  Similarly, it
seems to me that, despite a number of precedents to the
contrary, we should be reserving "BCP" for _network_ Best
Practices and not using it for IETF dministrative documents.


Problem: there is no appropriate document series into which to
put IETF Administrative documents so that they can be
conveniently located and properly identified without creating
confusion with documents that describe, or specify best
practices for, the network.

And, while I'm at it, having IESG policy statements that have
great impact on how the IETF operates available only on a web
page that changes seems unsanitary and likely to get us into
trouble.  So...

Problem: IESG "statements" are not published archivally.  That
is undesirable, and some system of recording them, such as
rounding them up annually and publishing them (or the last
year's additions and modifications) as an RFC, would be helpful
and wise.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list