ISSUE: Document subseries name for IETF Administration

Brian E Carpenter brian at
Mon Jun 16 17:56:23 CEST 2003


However, "there are too many document subseries and it's confusing
everybody" is not a problem we want to create. So while your
point is completely valid, I would like to see simplification
elsewehere to go with this complicattion.


John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
> 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.
> So...
> 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.
>        john

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list