Re: [DNA] Re: On the BCP documents

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>]

Pekka Nikander wrote:

> Well, from a standardisation point of view, it would be nice
> if we had a single, nice BCP document.  (Remember, IETF is
> mostly about standardisation.)  If I understood correctly
> what Greg said, Greg and I think that both drafts represent
> nice pieces of work that seem to belong to the BCP space.
> Hence, merging them would be good.

Perhaps the disagreement is due to different interpretations of 
"merging". While I'm all for producing one BCP document which has 
concrete advise for an implementor, "merging" too mean sounds like an 
editorial task of taking two drafts and editing them into one.

I think both drafts have lots of text which isn't necessary for the 
purpose of providing concrete advise for an implementor.
Thus I think we should take the concrete advise/ideas out of both and 
form a new draft which convers CPL, DAD, MLD, etc.


> I mostly agree, but, personally, I wish that the BCP document
> would also explain more the background, and give more information
> in that sense.  It does not need to be all normative text.

Some background is useful so that the reader/implementor can understand 
why the recommendations are the way they are.
But if there is too much to read less people will read the document as 
well. So this calls for some careful balancing.

    Erik