On 10-Jul-19 02:52, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > > [On Personal title, and changing the subject because this answers a specific question] > > [snip] > > > > > The related statement in RFC 6635 is slightly different, as it says: > > > > The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and acts > > as a body for final conflict resolution, including the process > > described in Section 4.3 <<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6635#section-4.3>>. > > > True, but that isn't a BCP with IETF consensus, is it? > > No it isn't. My understanding of the reasoning behind that choice, though, was that it matched the new model better to have the model documents published in the IAB stream. Leslie and Olaf may have better clue than me, though. > > > Indeed. Paraphrasing my recollection: the motivations was the idea that on the topic of the RFC model, the IETF community was a subset of the interested parties and publication on the IAB stream would signal a disinterested broker. Understood. But this is an area where we have to be very careful to distinguish decisions that can or should be made by IETF consensus (because they affect the IETF standards process) and decisions that affect the wider technical community, where the authority to declare consensus is much less well defined. I'm not suggesting that this is a new problem, of course, still less that there is an easy solution. Brian
