RFC7258 was published as BCP, and manifestly dudn't get the same standards
track procrss -fast tracked.
Not even from a wg...
I'm not sure it got consensus, either.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of S Moonesamy
<sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, 10 October 2014 2:31:33 AM
To: GTW
Cc: 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)
Hi George,
[Cc trimmed]
At 10:09 07-10-2014, GTW wrote:
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.
Process documents are usually published as BCPs. They gets the same
consensus treatment as other Standards Track documents. It would be
a bit daring of the IESG to argue that these sorts of documents do
not need consensus.
I came across the following ( http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ ):
"It administers the process according to the rules and procedures that
have been ratified by the ISOC trustees"
In my opinion the above is incorrect. The reference to RFC 2727 in
the second paragraph (see web page) is also incorrect.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy