todd glassey wrote:
Response-
No Joel - you are dead wrong IMHO. The IETF doesnt get to redefine the
Industry Term BCP to mean 'some document we publish'.
We use the term Request for Comments when after last call for input.
We use the term Standard when we have no official compliance
, March 14, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Suggestion on a BCP specific WG...
A) BCPs have an issue date. They are the best current practice at
the time of issue. There is no requirement that we maintain them,
although we like to.
b) There is, as far as I can tell, no intellectual property issue
Not that you folks take suggestions from me - but there would be a
tremendous value in creating a specific BCP WG that was a permanent part of
the IETF to manage the collection and IP issues within BCP's.
BCP's are an important part of moving-forward with IP management within the
IETF and it
A) BCPs have an issue date. They are the best current practice at
the time of issue. There is no requirement that we maintain them,
although we like to.
b) There is, as far as I can tell, no intellectual property issue
relative to BCPs that needs to be managed by anyone.
c) There is not any
