Re: Update to BCP-38?

[Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>]

On 10/3/19 10:13 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> There is one thing in 1122/1123 and 1812 that is not in those kinds
> of documents that I miss; that is essentially "why". Going through
> 1122/1123 and 1812, you'll ind several sections that say "we require
> X", and follow that with a "discussion" section that says "we thought
> about X, Y, and Z, there were proponents of each, the arguments were
> X', Y', and Z', and we chose X for this reason". I would presume that
> what you're really looking for in a 1812-for-IPv6 is not "we require
> X" as much as "for this reason". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ah.  What I'm looking for is a list of check-boxes to include in an
implementation specification for an edge router.  It can be references
to a whole bunch of RFCs and "packaged" as a BCP.  The discussions you
describe are better in the individual papers.

Side note: I'm used to rationales being included in Standards, and
welcome them, as long as they are normative and clearly marked so.

> I can kick the idea around in the IETF if its important to you. I'll
> be looking for a LOT of operational input.

It could well me that the data is there, we just need a document to
index it all.  That's what I thought a BPC was supposed to be.  It would
be like an article in ACM Computing Surveys, which references the
existing literature, as opposed to being created from whole cloth.

I think I steered everyone wrong when I was talking about some of the
exposition in the text, specifically the examples.  That kind of
material really belongs in an RFC.  My apologies.