Barry, I have a real problem with us producing a document with WG rough
consensus, IESG approval, but not IETF rough consensus.
People have been complaining about various markings causing confusion
about the status and meaning of documents. This seems a MUCH worse case
than anything I have seen.
The fact that the tooling allows it, and even presumably that IESG
processes allow it, does not make it a good idea.
If I think about it too much, I end up unable to parse the notion of a
document published on the IETF stream without IETF rough consensus.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/15/2019 2:19 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
terms, then either
1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
Informational publication is)
Just a point on this: it's not true.
We have a "consensus" flag in the datatracker, which triggers a
boilerplate change. It's always set to "yes" for Standards Track or
BCP, but for Informational and Experimental it can be set either way.
If it's set to "no", the boilerplate says that the document does not
have IETF consensus. It's possible that when we're done with this
document it could settle into that.
It's also possible that we might convince the regext working group to
stop processing this document and suggest to the authors to go to the
ISE. I don't think we're there yet, and at the moment the working
group has consensus to publish it as a working group product
Barry
