[rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Tue Jan 13 17:10:25 PST 2009

>I don't want to prolong the argument, but:
> >     IRTF non-consensus:
> >
> >       This document is a product of the Internet Research
> >       Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
> >       related research and development activities.  These results
> >       might not be suitable for deployment.
> >
> >       ++This RFC represents the individual
> >       opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
> >       Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).++
> >
> > ++ this paragraph seems unnecessary; we don't do this for IETF docs that
> > aren't group consensus.
>There shouldn't be *any* IETF stream documents that lack consensus that
>they are OK to publish. But even in the IETF, we've used equivalent
>formulations, e.g. RFC3248, when there's consensus to publish but
>not consensus on the contents.
>In the IRTF this variant is essential. IRTF groups are *not* automatically
>obliged to reach consensus, and factions within a research group need to be
>able to publish contended research results.

The document written by the IRTF to govern their stream calls for 
this distinction.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list