Specifically that flag is _only_ an indication to downstream processing
that the consensus boilerplate is expected to be used if the document is
prepared as an RFC.
The field is horribly named, and causes this kind of misapprehension
periodically. It needs to be renamed (and that is already on the list of
things to do).
RjS
On 8/26/20 2:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It looks like Barry change the "Consensus Required" flag. The history
shortened that to just "Consensus". As far as I can tell, given that
this document is intended for BCP, the document does indeed require
IETF rough consensus. Setting the flag does not represent Barry
calling the consensus, but rather him recording the fact that such a
call will be needed.
Everything looks right.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/26/2020 3:10 PM, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
Hi Murray,
The context is here
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/history/>
You can see where last week Barry had changed the consensus to Yes.
The change was made between the upload dates of version -02 and -03.
It was actually after the last IETF meeting but I guess now that I
think of it, I only remember Ben asking for a hum on wether or not it
was to be AD sponsored and not a hum for the draft itself. For
consensus on the draft itself, the AD sponsor would have put
something on the mailing list right?
