Subject: Re: ISSUE: Document subseries name for IETF Administration

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:19:12 -0700 (PDT)

*> 
  *> 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.
  *> 
  *> 
  *> 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.
  *> 

John, speaking strictly for myself, I find this issue at most
unimportant.  I don't see that we have a problem with the present
situation, and I wonder why the IETF should spend any of its
cycles trying to fix something that is not broken.  Goodness
knows, there are lots of (technical) things that ARE broken
in the IETF sphere.

Bob Braden

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:13:41 -0700 (PDT)

*> To be sure, there's nothing wrong with assigning a serial number to 
  *> each document, any more than assigning an ISBN to each book published. 
  *> But we don't tend to refer to such works by their ISBNs except in very
  *> specific contexts.  And we do find other kinds of document classification
  *> useful.
  *> 

Keith,

Maybe it would be different if there were a total of about 3500 books
in the ISBN series.

Bob Braden