Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt

Hi Peter,

as promised, I have discussed this issue (PS vs. BCP) within the IESG.
Some ADs thought PS was more appropriate while other ADs (including
myself) thought BCP would be better. However, we had consensus that this
is a very minor issue; everybody seemed to be able to live with either
PS or BCP.

The thing is that the IETF LC (before I was in the IESG) was for PS:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg06107.html

Therefore, if we decided to make it a BCP now, we would need to run a
second IETF LC. Therefore, my suggestion is to stick to PS (unless the
WG strongly opposes this way forward).

Thanks,

Gonzalo


On 15/09/2010 1:09 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 08:52:48AM -0400, Richard Shockey wrote:
>> Gonzalo is correct.  Fat thumb error. No conspiracy intended. Logically
>> given the subject matter it's a PS.
> 
> assuming that _this_ was now exactly that type of error :-), I'd like to
> point to <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg06548.html>
> and surrounding messages. In that discussion we concluded BCP was the
> appropriate status.  Please understand, PS would not provide "more value"
> than BCP, but both categories just have different functions.
> 
> Best regards,
>    Peter
>