Barry,
On 2014-10-08 18:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
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
Fair enough - I guess that we have enough knobs to turn to handle this.
The back ground is that there is something in the Shepherds Writeup that
confused me:
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
It seems that we can "forward" documents to the IESG that is not ready
(I don't claim to understand why this should be done) such a document
could have the wg consensus field set to "no".
But I will not push this, I think I pretty much have what I need in the
tracker, with the exception the the initial loop should be removed.
/Loa
--
Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert loa@xxxxx
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64