Re: Coex draft as BCP?

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, David Harrington wrote:
> The status we request is orthogonal to the document review. First we
> need to complete document review.
> 
> I am still researching which options are open to us.

OK.

> Without interoperability testing of multiple independent
> implementations, we cannot request standards-track advancement to Draft
> Status, and so far we have not been able to arrange a thorough test of
> the features and operations detailed in this document. If anybody is
> willing to work on staging the interoperability testing of some known
> implementations, that would be helpful.
> 
> **It does not need to be the implementers that perform the testing.**
> 
> We could recycle at Proposed and walk away, but I personally don't like
> that option, and the ADs may not like that option, but we can try that
> route if WG consensus is to do so.

Now that SNMPv1 has been reclassified as HISTORIC, it seems clear to
me that having the coexistence document remain on the standards track
(at any maturity level) would conflict with the following provision of
RFC 2026 Section 4.2.4:

   Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
   other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
   level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
   specifications from other standards bodies.

The specific problem is that the coexistence document depends on
RFC 1157 as a normative reference, but RFC 1157 is now Historic.

There is also a practical issue.  Keeping the document on the standards
track creates an implied committment to do the work needed to advance
it -- if not now, then later on.  Frankly, I don't think that the effort
involved in that would be a good use of IETF resources.

> On a quick reading, RFC2026 seems to indicate that BCP is for the use of
> IAB and IESG, although "BCPs are meant to express community consensus"
> may qualify this document.

There are, however, some precedents for publishing protocol-related
BCP documents.  See, for example, RFCs 2644 and 2827.

> I personally would like to advance the draft or publish as Proposed or
> BCP, since those require IESG review, and I believe such review from
> outside the WG is a good thing.
> 
> If it turns out the ADs or the IESG find these unacceptable, they will
> determine the appropriate publication level, or return the document to
> the WG for disposition.

Another option would be to submit the document for consideration as
an Informational RFC.  According to RFC 2026 Section 4.2.3, "Procedures
for Experimental and Informational RFCs", IESG review would still be
required:

   Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
   Working Groups go through IESG review.  The review is initiated using
   the process described in section 6.1.1.

I don't think it makes too much difference whether the document is
submitted for consideration as a BCP or as an Informational RFC, but
I don't think it would be appropriate for it to remain on the
standards track.

//cmh