26.06.2011 0:15, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/25/11 8:16 AM, John Leslie wrote:
I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a
statement;
and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents
gives any assurance of "consensus of the IETF community".
From RFC 5741, Section 3.2.2, for Informational documents which were
Last Called and approved on IETF Stream:
"It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
Note the first sentence. By approving the Informational RFC which Last
Call was issued for, IESG claims that IETF consensus exists. Thia
assumes Last Call which actually resulted in IETF consensus. However,
if Last Call doesn't represent such sort of agreement, IESG just
shouldn't approve the document.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
I believe the IESG concluded that, although the document itself is
Informational, it is moving two RFCs to Historic status, which is a
Standards Action, and that we would use whatever procedures are
appropriate to a Standards Action to act on the document. This was the
third point of my DISCUSS comment and I believe the rest of the IESG
agreed with me on this point.
pr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf