Recognising RFC1984 as a BCP
status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice-01

For the record I believe that the IETF experience of the interceding twenty years since the original publication reinforces the necessity of this statement.

Consensus was clear at the SAAG meeting for this change IMO.  The mailing list discussions were very helpful to sort through options and opinions.

Having balloted Yes, I note that the question on this ballot is "is this the right thing to do?".

There has been more than a little process wonking in the community discussion on this status change. Stephen has done a fairly heroic job in responding to that discussion. I happen to think that our current process really doesn't help us in this case (see: lawyering about whether we're allowed to move an Informational RFC produced by the IAB and IESG to BCP without issuing a new RFC, for starters).

There are moments when I wish we were doing a new document that says "the IESG has been treating RFC 1984 as if it were an IETF-stream BCP for a very long time. RFC 1984 doesn't look like a BCP that we would publish in 2015, and it wasn't produced the way we would produce a BCP in 2015, but that hasn't prevented anyone from treating it as if it had been produced and evaluated as a BCP, had that option been possible twenty years ago, so, we're going for it", and publishing THAT as a BCP.

But the question on this ballot isn't whether we would approve RFC 1984 unchanged as a new RFC, it's whether recognizing twenty years of reality is the right thing to do. So. I'm a Yes.

As this is on a telechat, and I'm the responsible AD, you know 
that I think there is rough consensus for this. But the in-place
part is a bit rough, so to help you figure out what you think,
Robert Sparks nicely summarised the IETF last call for this [1]
to which Dave Crocker responded [2] calling out that it was
more than just one or two folks with issues. (That said, there 
were a lot of people at the saag meeting who supported doing
just this so to the extent that numbers matter, the ietf@ietf.org
mailing list traffic is not the full picture as we know.)

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94632.html
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94635.html