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)

2014-10-08 04:23:43
----- Original Message -----
From: "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" <spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "RFC Editor"
<rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 7:08 PM

Just piling in after Barry here ... and speaking as the AD who had the
most
recent ¨draft on a telechat agenda with consensus = unknown¨, but I'm
hardly the only one.

The field in the tracker is labeled ¨consensus¨, which is ambiguous but
actually means ¨IETF consensus¨. So, it should be set after IETF Last
Call.

A fair number of the documents I've processed already had it set to
¨yes¨
when they were publication-requested, so that means the shepherd/working
group chairs thought it meant ¨working group consensus¨.

I believe - but Barry would know - that we've requested that the field
label be changed to ¨IETF Consensus¨ in the datatracker.

(I know we talked about that, but I don't know whether we've made the
request yet)

<tp>

What would be even more helpful would be, as in other systems I use, the
ability to click on a field name and be taken to a help facility for the
various values that can appear in a field.

BUT ... it would only be worth doing if we have the resources to
maintain such a system.  I say that because the second biggest problem I
have with the IETF website (after the denial of service caused by
https:// :-(  is incorrect links, that have not been updated as and when
the website has been reorganised.  I do not have the experience of
website maintenance to know why this is a problem (just observe that it
is, with both the IETF and other websites).

Tom Petch
</tp>

Spencer

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Barry Leiba 
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:

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>