|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hi Pete, At 11:57 17-07-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a requirements document in the sense that it is laying out requirements for future protocol documents being developed by a WG; it is a consensus document listing the requirements for the operation and administration of a type of device. If that doesn't fall within the 2nd paragraph of RFC 2026 section 5, I don't know what does.
I don't recall seeing an IPR disclosure on a BCP. Most new Informational RFCs are also consensus documents. There are a few Informational RFCs which lists requirements for operation and administration. I don't think that this document should be BCP as the status does not exercise the "must demonstrate at least two independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing process".