Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



26.06.2011 0:15, 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".
From RFC 5741, Section 3.2.2, for Informational documents which were Last Called and approved on IETF Stream:

         "It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
         received public review and has been approved for publication by
         the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."

Note the first sentence. By approving the Informational RFC which Last Call was issued for, IESG claims that IETF consensus exists. Thia assumes Last Call which actually resulted in IETF consensus. However, if Last Call doesn't represent such sort of agreement, IESG just shouldn't approve the document.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

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.

pr


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]