> If anything that is in front of a WG is fair game for a consensus call, > does it appear to you that a clear definition of "what is in front of a > WG" could be an addition to a revised RFC 2418? I'd say that is up to the WG chairs > I got that part; to clarify a little bit further, are you saying that in > order to remove published IETF specifications rough consensus is not > enough and strong consensus is required? no, but a specific "rough consensus" to remove would be (imho) (and in this case its not to remove a specification, its to remove a specific feature from a specification and leave the rest) Scott