ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Facts and draft-state information (was Re: Protocol Action: 'Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF' to Proposed Standard (draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf-02.txt)

2014-10-07 12:09:55
I wonder if "procedures" sort of documents require/deserve the same sort of consensus as "technical specification" sort of documents. This is interesting to me as there is a global standards policy debate whether "governance" sort of documents should/need the same sort of consensus as "technical specification" standards. There is a contention that "governance" sort of documents need not be consensus sort of documents.

there is no doubt a factual answer to this matter in IETF procedures we will hear ... yet there are very many varieties of standards development organizations around the world with different models

George T. Willingmyre
President GTW Associates


-----Original Message----- From: Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 12:47 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ; RFC Editor ; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Facts and draft-state information (was Re: Protocol Action: 'Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF' to Proposed Standard (draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf-02.txt)

It's not true that no consensus is needed for a document just because it's
not a WG product.  Anything that comes through the IETF stream (including
AD-sponsored documents) need to reflect consensus.

That's generally true the vast majority of the time, though there are
exceptions for some Experimental or Informational documents, which is
why the flag is there in the first place.

We do occasionally produce documents that describe proprietary
protocols or that republish outside documents in the IETF stream.  We
try to do those in the Independent stream instead, but it's not always
the best or right thing.  When they're published in the IETF stream,
the point is that we have consensus to publish them, but we might not
have consensus on the protocol that's described.  In those cases,
we'll use "No" for the "Consensus" flag.

Barry
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>