As Dave Crocker pointed out, this document is, at best, revisionist history. Dave's original RFC 1603 text (that I carried forward into RFC 2418) bears little resemblance to the process/considerations described in this ID. This ID may be describing how we should start to view the meaning of the term "rough consensus" , but I do wish that the ID took care to propose it as new concept rather than pretend that it has always been what the IETF has done. The process in the ID is not what was followed when I was an AD and it not what I have described by the meaning of the term "rough consensus" in my newcomers tutorials (which I have been giving since at least IETF 57 in 2003). Thus I do not consider this ID ready for publication and call for it to be revised to clearly state that it is proposing a redefinition of the concept and term "rough consensus" then re-last called. Scott