Re: [Gen-art] [regext] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Barry, I have a real problem with us producing a document with WG rough 
consensus, IESG approval, but not IETF rough consensus.

People have been complaining about various markings causing confusion 
about the status and meaning of documents.  This seems a MUCH worse case 
than anything I have seen.

The fact that the tooling allows it, and even presumably that IESG 
processes allow it, does not make it a good idea.

If I think about it too much, I end up unable to parse the notion of a 
document published on the IETF stream without IETF rough consensus.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/15/2019 2:19 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
>> terms, then either
>> 1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
>> Informational publication is)
> 
> Just a point on this: it's not true.
> 
> We have a "consensus" flag in the datatracker, which triggers a
> boilerplate change.  It's always set to "yes" for Standards Track or
> BCP, but for Informational and Experimental it can be set either way.
> If it's set to "no", the boilerplate says that the document does not
> have IETF consensus.  It's possible that when we're done with this
> document it could settle into that.
> 
> It's also possible that we might convince the regext working group to
> stop processing this document and suggest to the authors to go to the
> ISE.  I don't think we're there yet, and at the moment the working
> group has consensus to publish it as a working group product
> 
> Barry
>