An individual has the ability to write a draft. The IESG has the
ability to gauge consensus as to whether that draft should become a
standard. So in essence they have the capability today. The fact that
it is rarely used is a testament to the good judgement these good people
display. In other words, at least this part "ain't broke".
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Eliot Lear wrote:
Perhaps the IETF traditional motto, "rough consensus and working
code" should be revised to make it clear that the "rough consensus"
goes only up to a certain point, but after that point the IETF
operates solely by a decree from the IESG.
You and I were both in the room when the Ethernet-MIB WG LOUDLY
objected to Jon Postel having tweaked the Ethernet-MIB to properly
align definitions with what the IEEE counters were. The WG chair was
rip roaring upset. Here you had rough consensus and running code.
How dare others interfere! Of course it was a broken spec, but
nevermind that! The WG knew better.
Good thing *someone* was minding the store.
At the same time reverse is not true, i.e. I do not think IESG should be
allowed to make a decision on document on its own if there is no consensus.
Ietf mailing list