Ah, that never cross my mind: I always assumed that RFCs, been a "product" of the IETF (since it is published by IETF copyrighted by ISOC) should also adopt the IETF principle. But you may be right..no where in 2026 and 1543 say anything about RFC needs to have rough consensus..hmm... -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "James Seng" <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:58 AM Subject: Re: Naming crap (Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents) > At 03:49 PM 3/27/2004, James Seng wrote: > >Sound nice but isn't this go against the "rough consensus" principle? > > The "rough consensus" principle applies to IETF documents, > not to RFCs in general. > > >You are free to doc your opinion (even if it is not rough consensus) in the > >mailing list. > > > >-James Seng > > > >> What I personally view as "crap" has no bearing in regards to these > >> points, excepting that where I feel strong enough to produce an I-D > >> detailing why I think something is "crap" I should be allowed > >> (if I can met general editorial and technical standards) to publish > >> that opinion as an RFC even though consensus of the IETF (or Keith's > >> review board or the RFC Editor) might be that my opinion is "crap". > >> (That opinion could be expressed in the form of an alternative protocol > >> specification.) > >