--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 16:17 -0400 John Leslie
<john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
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.
...
John,
A small nit... While in this area as in many others, we've
never actually / formally updated 2026, things have evolved a
bit. We've modified the RFC Editor model to include explicit
and separate streams, have added headers to indicate the stream
in which something is published, and have made provisions for
explicit statements about the level of consensus achieved. IMO,
that is completely reasonable -- it is less important, IMO,
whether the IESG requires community consensus about a particular
document (regardless of whether it is Information, Full
Standard, or somewhere in between) than that they not
misrepresent the situation.
I don't quite see how that is relevant to this particular case,
either.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf