Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... If the phrase "Request For Comments" no longer means what it says, > we need another RFC, with a provisional title of > "Request For Comments Means What It Says". ;^) > We still see comments on RFC 791 reasonably often, and I see comments > on RFC 2460 practically every day. That's as it should be. Absolutely! > So I'd like to dispute Ted's point that by publishing a version of > resnick-on-consensus as an RFC, we will engrave its contents in stone. Well, of course, all RFCs have always been "archival" -- to that extent, they _are_ "engraved in stone"... > If that's the case, we have an even deeper problem than misunderstandings > of rough consensus. Alas, IMHO, we do. :^( Ted and Dave Crocker _have_ made very good comments on this I-D which is proposed to be an Informational RFC. For the most part, these comments could just as well come _after_ it is published as such. The _problem_ is that an RFC clearly labeled as an individual contribution _should_ have value _as_ an individual contribution. It should not have to pass muster of our famous peanut gallery before being published. The story is completely different for working-group documents published on the Standards Track. For those, our quality-control process is quite necessary. Perhaps the problem comes from the boilerplate for Informational: ] ] Status of This Memo ] ] This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is ] published for informational purposes. ] ] This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force ] (IETF). 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). Not all documents ] approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet ] Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. ] ] Information about the current status of this document, any errata, ] and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at ] http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7017. The only differences between this boilerplate and the boilerplate for standards track is that the Standards Track has a different first paragraph ] ] This is an Internet Standards Track document. and the Standards Track boilerplate omits the sentence ] ] Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level ] of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. replacing it with ] ] Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 ] of RFC 5741. (In fact, the IESG review is quite different for these categories.) We see that all these categories state, "It represents the consensus of the IETF community." In fact, if there is an easy way to tell from the published RFC whether an Informational RFC represents an individual contribution or a Working Group output, it escapes me at the moment. :^( Thus perhaps Ted and Dave are right to hold this draft to a high "consensus of the IETF community" standard. I just wish that were not so... -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>