Subject: Re: ECM WG last call for draft-floyd-cong-01.txt as BCP

From: Vern Paxson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:29:02 PST

> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:10:34PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote:
> ] Vern Paxson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ]] John Leslie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ]] 
> ]]> BCPs, in my experience, have been a temporary terminal point: we
> ]]> know a problem exists; we don't feel any progress is imminent; and
> ]]> we want to publish how we deal with it, because that way seems "good
> ]]> enough".
> > 
> >> I view them differently - they are closer to statements of current IETF
> >> policies & recommendations. 
> 
>    Sad... to think the IESG has come to view it as its job to set "policy"
> at each meeting. :^(

??  I don't understand this comment.  The IESG was not involved in the
decision to propose publishing this document as BCP, and it doesn't have
anything to do with the previous or pending IETF meetings.  I had noted
that I was thinking the document should be BCP in email to the working
group a month ago, and that didn't elicit any comments.

> >> The "current" is because policy/recommendations can change, not because
> >> we don't expect things to change any time soon.  
> 
>    Sad... to think that policies should be expected to change on short
> notice. :^(

The logic here is inverted.  I'm saying that "current" doesn't have to do
with such an expectation; I'm *not* saying that there *is* an expectation
to change things on short notice.

		Vern

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:05:02 -0500

On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:29:02AM -0800, Vern Paxson wrote:
> ??  I don't understand this comment. 

   I meant that IESG -- the Internet Engineering Steering Group -- never
used to think it their job to _determine_ policy, least of all based on
a single vote at a single meeting.

> The IESG was not involved in the decision to propose publishing this
> document as BCP, and it doesn't have anything to do with the previous
> or pending IETF meetings.

   I'll take your word for that.

> I had noted that I was thinking the document should be BCP in email to
> the working group a month ago,

   I went searching for that, and didn't find it. :^( Which list was it
sent to?

> and that didn't elicit any comments.

   I didn't comment because I didn't see it. I can't speak for anyone
else.

> to change things on short notice.

   I'm not saying either of those -- I'm saying that I think it a bad idea
to publish a BCP if we _do_ expect things to change soon.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>