RJ Atkinson <rja(_at_)extremenetworks(_dot_)com> writes:
On Thursday, Jan 23, 2003, at 17:54 America/Montreal, Bob Braden wrote:
I interpret "IETF consensus" as meaning that at least a Last
Call was conducted. To use any other interpretation seems to me to
be dishonest. I guess I am agreeing with Kireeti.
[IAB hat off]
I agree with the above. IESG approval is not identical to IETF
consensus. If it were, the IETF community would not be giving such
vocal feedback about concerns with the IESG at the last 2 meetings
and on the ietf-problems mailing list, IMHO.
As one of the authors of RFC 2434 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", I have long regretted defining the term
"IETF Consensus" as it is in that document. 2434 says:
IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
(e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists).
Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent Address
Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT].
The intent of the above wording was to provide a way for documents to
request that IANA only assign code points when there exists a document
that gets published as an RFC. The wording above specifically does not
say "Standards Track" RFC and was intented to include informational
and experimental documents, whether from a WG or not. There is an
alternate definition - "Standards Action" - that can be cited if IANA
assignments are only to be made for Standards Track documents.
I think intent of the above definition is fine. But naming the term
"IETF Consensus" is obviously problematical and confusing, as there
are many Info and Experimental RFCs for which there is nothing close
to IETF consensus on, and no one would claim so.
So, let's be clear that in the context of most of the discussion on
this thread, folks seem to be applying their own definition of what
"IETF Consensus" means when in fact the 2434 definition is what should
be used, as is cited in the relevant IANA considerations section.
I don't know what can be done a this point to change the terminology
in 2434. It's been in use for some 4 years now...
I'm reminded of another great choice of terms, the Best Current
Practice, where we have had numerous threads about whether something
was actually "best" or a "currently practice". There too, the actual
definition as defined in the RFC is not quite the same as the what the
literal term might suggest.
Thomas