|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 9:32 AM -0700 5/29/97, Karl Denninger wrote: > >The IAHC was not done within the IETF process. There is no RFC which was > >promoted to either a BCP or Internet Standard defining their work. > > Once again, I do commend to folks that they learn about the IETF > process. The IETF does not dictate procedures or administration for the > operational Internet. It does not participate in the development or > execution of those procedures. The IETF specifies technical standards. > The documents known as "best current practise" represent efforts to > characterize methods of using those standards, rather than methods of > running the Internet. > Perhaps you should check RFC2026. It became a BCP right around the same time that the IAHC started preaching. It seems to indicate that you are mistaken. Perhaps it is you who should learn about the NEW IETF process. 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function. Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with the technical specifications for hardware and software required for computer communication across interconnected networks. However, since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user service requires that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process for consensus building. While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996 themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the community's view of that issue. Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards Process and is published as a BCP. Vince WOlodkin > -------------------- > Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 > Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 > 675 Spruce Dr. [email protected] > Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com > > Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, [email protected] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|