[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: snmpconf taxonomy discussion(s) - suggested resolution

Hi all,

> > Jon, I understand your frustration... but you migth give it
> > a try to show that WG is in favor of BCP.
> Hi Bert,
> If you will recall, you raised the question originally and it was in the 
> context of having a BCP that included policy information. Most of this 
> discussion took place in March of this year.
> This is the thread you started: 
> http://www.snmp.com/snmpconf/mailing-list/msg00616.html
> You raised some questions and several people including Joel
> and Andrew made points about the OKness of this as a BCP.
> In the end there were no objections registered.

> The document as it will stand when republished is in line with 2026.

I agree with Jon.

> It 
> documents practices that can be used for writing MIB Modules and development 
> of management software.
> The first paragraph from 2026 states:
>    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.

Note that it says, "the results of community deliberations"
and "the community's best current thinking".  It doesn't say
"fielded products" or "stuff that everyone's been doing for a
long time", so that isn't a requirement.  I think this document
fits fine.