Subject: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 7 - Removability - BCP

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:08:27 -0500 (EST)

open from last version

> I'd change "BCP publication" to "using its normal consensus processes"
> (BCP is no magic term and may not survive the newtrk process)

I did not see anyone speak up to support the use of the term "BCP" 
yet the term (the meaning of which may change in the future) is still
used

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:39:37 +0100

> yet the term (the meaning of which may change in the future) is still

I support it.
We don't have a better formal term at the moment for "procedure document 
where formal assertion of IETF consensus is required".

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:27:58 -0500 (EST)

> where formal assertion of IETF consensus is required".

why not just say that?

   Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal
      and financial home of the IASA to another corporation, the IASA
      shall be structured to enable a clean transition in the event that
      the IETF community decides, through the publication of a 
      procedure document where a formal assertion of IETF consensus 
      is required. (currently called BCP) ...

Scott

---
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:39:37 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 7 - Removability - BCP

I support it.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:36:13 -0500

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> writes:

    Scott> open from last version

    >> I'd change "BCP publication" to "using its normal consensus
    >> processes" (BCP is no magic term and may not survive the newtrk
    >> process)

    Scott> I did not see anyone speak up to support the use of the
    Scott> term "BCP" yet the term (the meaning of which may change in
    Scott> the future) is still used

I like the term BCP in this iinstance.  I think it is more clear than
Scott's text.