--On Thursday, 30 January, 2003 16:29 +0100 Randy Bush
<randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
It would seem quite simple for you to take the text of
RFC-2434, edit the text appropriately to pick a more clear
and accurate term, then run it past the community for BCP.
Sure, this is easy. The harder part is that there are many
many RFCs that use the "IETF Consensus" terminology in their
IANA considerations
and they meant the current 2434 definition
Except, perhaps, for the documents that were written before 2434
with a rather specific definition --discussed with the IESG at
the time-- in mind. If 2434 modifies them, then 2434 can be
updated and the update can update all of the earlier documents
as well. If 2434 doesn't modify them, then we are, for better
or worse, back into the situation we were in with 2119 --
documents could either use it or could not refer to it but,
instead, make up their own defintions.
The fact that there has been significant traffic on this
probably justifies an update / clarification. For the record, I
don't care what that clarification is although:
* I think pushing all of these things toward standards
track would be a mistake.
* I think that an intermediate position between
"standards track document" and "RFC publication" is a
desirable thing to have, when the WG's position is
really that some determination of consensus and
reasonableness by the IETF (not just by IANA) is
desirable.
john