To:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Cc:
iesg@ietf.org, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date:
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:53:08 +1100
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "21 Mar 2000 19:02:14 -0000." <20000321190214.67.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Last Call: Root Name Server Operational Requirements to BCP
Date: 21 Mar 2000 19:02:14 -0000
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Message-ID: <20000321190214.67.qmail@cr.yp.to>
| Words have meanings. It is simply not true that opreq is ``current
| practice.'' Please stop trying to deceive people.
You are arguing the wrong point in the wrong forum. There's no question
(well, IMO) but that BCP is appallingly badly named. BCP docs usually have
nothing whatever to do with best, current, or practice, and never did.
BCPs are simply docs that the IETF wants to give special recognition to
(as in, this is how it should be) but where the requirements of the standards
processes (multiple implementations of all features, and multiple versions at
different levels of standardisation, ...) make no sense at all - which is
the case here, and in the IETF procedure docs, and lots of other places.
If you want to argue about this, the place is in the poisson WG, which is
where the doc series was created. When it was being created, all these
arguments were held, but when no-one could come up with an obviously better
name (and particularly one with a TLA) the current name simply stuck, as
bad as it is.
The opreq doc meets the requirements of a BCP doc as BCP docs are defined,
regardless of how well it might meet the expanded form of the name interpreted
as an English phrase. But that should not be done any more than one should
argue whether any doc should be an RFC or not, based upon how well the doc
fits as a "request for comments".
kre