[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
sm at resistor.net
Tue Sep 27 12:01:51 PDT 2011
At 11:24 27-09-2011, John Levine wrote:
>This document is a summary of best practices for BL management. The
>authors talked to people who run BLs to find out what works and
>summarized what they found out. You know, research, since it's from
>an RG. The title accurately describes what it is.
I followed the discussion.
BCP has a special meaning in the IETF which is why it has been
brought up. The question Dave asked could be put as:
Is it appropriate to publish best practices in the Independent Stream?
If it conflicts with existing IETF work, the answer would be no.
In the IETF, the document title would have been inappropriate for an
Informational document as best practices are generally published as
BCPs. As this is an IRTF document, it is up to the IRTF and RSE to
decide what to do.
I don't feel strongly about this. I suggest changing the title to
make all this a non-issue.
>There's a few places it uses the term BCP which is a mistake. I added
>a note to the RFC Ed to fix them. I don't see what the problem is
>with 2026 lanaguage -- if you want to follow the practices it
>describes, that's how you do it.
The comment was about the RFC 2119 language. I don't see it as a
problem as such key words may be required in a non-IETF stream specification.
More information about the rfc-interest