- From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
- Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:20:49 -0400
- To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, public-iri@w3.org
--On Sunday, April 08, 2012 12:12 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'm just starting to review things as your new AD. I noticed
> that the header of this document says that its intended status
> is "Best Current Practice". I believe that is incorrect. It
> should be "Proposed Standard". Please change this, or give a
> very compelling reason that this is not on the standards
> track. If it is not on the standards track, I will argue
> vociferously for it being "Informational". It is certainly not
> appropriate for BCP, which is (many exceptions
> notwithstanding) for IETF process and procedures.
Pete, while I'm a strong believer in Applicability Statement
handling for documents like this one, I hope the BCP will
continue to remain available for descriptive documents that
really do describe established and tested "best" practices, not
just IETF process and procedure documents (which, IMO, should
eventually really be in a category by themselves).
> I think standards track is appropriate; it gives protocol
> rules for the use of Bidi in IRIs.
Agreed.
john
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2012 17:21:19 UTC