[rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
narten at us.ibm.com
Fri Jan 16 06:54:38 PST 2009
Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com> writes:
> Maybe I'm losing track of things here, but...
OK, I should have looked at the just-posted document
IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). "
If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
additional sentence should be added: "It represents a consensus of
the IETF community. It has received public review and has been
approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
That seems clear, except that the text actually proposes to add two
sentences, not one. :-)
But I would welcome clarification on what the IESG currently does with
WG info and experimental documents. Does it last call them all?
Case-by-case? (And same question I guess for non WG IETF
And not to reopen all this, but saying a document is "the product of
the IETF" but having some say they are "consensus" and others not (by
omission) seems like a distinction that will be largely lost by those
outside of the IETF. What folk will point to is that a document *is*
the product of the IETF.
More information about the rfc-interest