Hi, Robert,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:46 PM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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).
Thank you for this!
We routinely had WG chairs that set it because they had *working group* consensus, before they requested publication.
Just to follow on Joel's answer to Timothy's question - if the document is to be published in the IETF stream, and consensus is required, either the document achieves consensus (in whatever form), or it would not be published, post-https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8789/. So, "IESG Approval" is the key indicator of whether that happened or not.
Best,
Spencer
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?
>
