Scott,
--On 29. juni 2005 19:22 -0400 Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
It's not a hard concept. It just isn't mentioned or implied in RFC 2780.
neither is not drinking gasoline but I trust that will not change
your desire to not do so
while Brian and the IESG have certainly chosen to eat fire......
"check with the community" has its own "codepoint" in RFC 2434. It's called
"IETF Consensus". (I've abandoned the theory that the IESG could sometimes
tell that there was IETF consensus without asking. Too many opportunities
for firestorms like this one, even when it sometimes IS obvious).
The people who wrote 2780 chose to write:
5.5 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option Fields
Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options fields
are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards
Action processes.
So we've got two possible interpretations:
- The authors and the community that let this be published thought that
there were some cases where the IESG could make a decision without
consulting the community. Presumably this included "no" decisions.
- The authors and the community did not understand that there was a
difference between "IESG Approval" and "IETF Consensus".
I trust the competence of these authors, so I think the first decision is a
reasonable one.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf