On Jun 25, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 6/25/11 8:16 AM, John Leslie wrote: >> I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a statement; >> and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents >> gives any assurance of "consensus of the IETF community". >> > > I believe the IESG concluded that, although the document itself is Informational, it is moving two RFCs to Historic status, which is a Standards Action, and that we would use whatever procedures are appropriate to a Standards Action to act on the document. This was the third point of my DISCUSS comment and I believe the rest of the IESG agreed with me on this point. Draft 4 which went through wgcl and was submitted to the iesg had an intended status of standards track, at the request of the iesg the reguested status was changed to informational. The document is a standards action and thus must meet the higher standard to pass iesg review regardless of it's intended status... This is entirely consistent with historical precident as far as I can tell. > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf