Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 5:55 AM, John Leslie wrote:
First, note the Subject line: an IETF Last-Call on a Working Group
document _isn't_ asking for IETF Consensus: it's simply a last-call for
comments on an action proposed by a Working Group.
I'm quite confused by this opinion. *No* IETF Last Call announcements,
even those for standards track documents, say that they are to determine
IETF consensus, yet IETF consensus is required for many of these
documents.
I cannot speak with any authority on this, but I can quote RFC 2026:
]
] 4.2.2 Informational
]
] An "Informational" specification is published for the general
] information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
] Internet community consensus or recommendation.
This seems pretty plain to me.
As for Standards-track and BCP, I read RFC 2026 to call for "consensus
building", not "IETF consensus". YMMV.
In your view, how are we to know which IETF Last Call announcements
are to determine IETF consensus
IMHO, essentially none of them. To quote RFC 2026:
]
] 14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
] Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of
] consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.
] (see section 6.1.2)
Section 6.1.2 is pretty long; I'll quote only one paragraph:
]
] The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG
] consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the
] general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be
] via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a
] Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as
] directed in the Last-Call announcement.
I don't read that as requiring "IETF Consensus" to be determined:
merely that the "level of consensus" be considered -- strongly suggesting
that the IESG may approve something where the "level of consensus" falls
below "rough". (I do not intend to express any opinion whether they ever
do so.)
and which are just to bring additional input to the IESG for a
non-consensus decision?
Clearly, RFC 2026 does not require any kind of consensus for Informational
documents.
Perhaps less clearly, but IMHO, RFC 2026 does not require the IESG
to "determine" "IETF consensus" on Standards-track documents.
Or are you saying that the IESG determines IETF consensus using metrics
other than the discussion on ietf@?
I have not said that. IMHO, the IESG procedures don't even attempt to
"determine IETF consensus" on the vast majority of documents. They attempt
to determine instead whether the document should be sent back for rework.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf