On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It is true that consensus (rough or otherwise) is a state, and that state can always change. But consensus should be on a particular point and it must be relatively stable; it shouldn't be claimed on some broad platitude for which nobody knows the details, and it shouldn't change unless new information is brought into the mix. Why not? Claiming consensus on a broad platitude may well be very constructive from the perspective of gaining momentum in actually doing something, not only within the IETF but outside of the IETF. It's true that it doesn't have much effect beyond that, but just because a thing has only effect A and not effect B does not mean that it has no effect.