RFC 7749, "The "xml2rfc" Version 2 Vocabulary", February 2016

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7991

Errata ID: 4850
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Heather Flanagan
Date Reported: 2016-10-31
Verifier Name: Robert Sparks
Date Verified: 2018-02-09

Section A.4. says:

A.4.  The "consensus" Attribute

   For some of the publication streams (see Appendix A.3), the "Status
   of This Memo" section depends on whether there was a consensus to
   publish (again, see Section 3.2.2 of [RFC5741]).

   The "consensus" attribute ("yes"/"no", defaulting to "yes") can be
   used to supply this information.  The effect for the various
   streams is:

   o  "independent" and "IAB": none.

   o  "IETF": mention that there was an IETF consensus.

   o  "IRTF": mention that there was a research group consensus (where
      the name of the research group is extracted from the <workgroup>
      element).

It should say:

A.4.  The "consensus" Attribute

   For some of the publication streams (see Appendix A.3), the "Status
   of This Memo" section depends on whether there was a consensus to
   publish (again, see Section 3.2.2 of [RFC5741]).

   The "consensus" attribute ("yes"/"no", defaulting to "yes") can be
   used to supply this information.  The effect for the various
   streams is:

   o  "independent": none.

   o  "IAB": mention that there was an IAB consensus.

   o  "IETF": mention that there was an IETF consensus.

   o  "IRTF": mention that there was a research group consensus (where
      the name of the research group is extracted from the <workgroup>
      element).

Notes:

IAB documents may or may not include a consensus statement. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-memos.txt, numbers 9-12.

Report New Errata