Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02.txt

i agree, my changing the status was a mistake.

That said, I think it would help a lot to identify the roles for which conformance behavior is being standardized. I suspected that sometimes we were talking about IRI selection, sometimes about IRI processing, sometimes about  Iri display, and rarely about restrictions on IRI syntax.


-----Original message-----
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Sent: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 21:18:33 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02.txt

On 4/8/12 12:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Sunday, April 08, 2012 12:12 -0500 Pete Resnick
> <presnick@qualcomm.com>  wrote:
>
>
>> [...]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).
>

This is obviously not the place for the more general conversation, but
in summary: I have seen scant few documents produced in this
organization (at least since the disappearance of the User Services
area) that described established and tested "best" practices *and* were
not a proposal for a standard way of doing things over the Internet, one
that could be improved with incremental deployment and implementation
experience and could eventually become a protocol standard. There are
examples of local configuration descriptions and the like that could
reasonably fit into this category, but they are relatively uncommon in
the IETF.

In any event, with regard to this document...

>> I think standards track is appropriate; it gives protocol
>> rules for the use of Bidi in IRIs.
>>
> Agreed.
>

...it appears that we agree that this isn't one of them.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102