> there are no rules on that question - in my opinion, anything > in front of a WG is fair game for a consensus call Tony's point is that the consensus was not in front of the WG; please allow me to reformulate my question: 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? > the point I tried to make in my posting was that I think > there needs to be consensus to change something that has > already been adopted (more so if it was adopted a while > back), and that its not proper for a lack of consensus > to keep as a consensus or mandate to remove - i.e. there > should be a barrier to capricious changes of published > IETF specifications 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? Michel
