> > and they meant the current 2434 definition > > or they misread 2434 (or did not read 2434) and thought they knew > what "IETF consensus" means which means that it's not simply a matter of revising text, but of asking again what was intended, and perhaps reopening the debate. so perhaps we should assume that they meant what was written in 2434 unless we have a good reason to believe otherwise.