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

Thomas Narten 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

It says:

   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
      Group (IESG)."

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
info/experimental docs.)

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 mailing list