> It might be a bit of overkill (and not very high priority) to have > two fields - one "WG Consensus" and "IETF Consensus"? I understand where that comes from, but I think it's an artifact of the poorly names "Consensus" field. No document should come out of a working group with publication requested unless is has working group consensus, so I don't see the value to such a field. The problem here is that the "Consensus" field is purely something to tell the RFC Editor what boilerplate to put on the document, and the field should be renamed to make that clear and to remove the confusion. I believe the IESG does have a ticket open with the tools team to address this, and it'll eventually pop out and get changed. Barry