RFC7258 was published as BCP, and manifestly dudn't get the same standards track procrss -fast tracked. Not even from a wg... I'm not sure it got consensus, either. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, 10 October 2014 2:31:33 AM To: GTW Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Facts and draft-state information (was Re: Protocol Action: 'Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF' to Proposed Standard (draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf-02.txt) Hi George, [Cc trimmed] At 10:09 07-10-2014, GTW wrote: >I wonder if "procedures" sort of documents require/deserve the same >sort of consensus as "technical specification" sort of >documents. This is interesting to me as there is a global standards >policy debate whether "governance" sort of documents should/need the >same sort of consensus as "technical specification" >standards. There is a contention that "governance" sort of >documents need not be consensus sort of documents. Process documents are usually published as BCPs. They gets the same consensus treatment as other Standards Track documents. It would be a bit daring of the IESG to argue that these sorts of documents do not need consensus. I came across the following ( http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ ): "It administers the process according to the rules and procedures that have been ratified by the ISOC trustees" In my opinion the above is incorrect. The reference to RFC 2727 in the second paragraph (see web page) is also incorrect. Regards, S. Moonesamy