In your previous mail you wrote: Francis, I don't think BCP status would change this; that's still a
=> I disagree: the procedure for BCPs is lighter and BTW there is nothing when you look at it which justifies a standard track (we should not promote it to a draft standard for instance :-). IETF consensus document. Maybe some implementations could fix their implementations with local hacks without as easily becoming (on paper) incompliant but they can already do this in any case. => a BCP is far more flexible if you add the term "compliant", and it is not a surprise a best current practice can change. I don't believe to make it a BCP will solve automagically all issues but at least it will repair a historical error. Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
