Re: Status of this memo

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 14:08 -0400 "Andrew G. Malis"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> A draft reflects WG consensus when it has the name
> draft-ietf-wg-.... (that's the definition of that name).
> Before then, it's just a proposal from one or more individuals.
>...

Andrew, I'd dispute even that.   Identification as a WG draft
definitely means that the draft represents some sort of WG
consensus that the draft is something the WG intends to discuss
and use as a basis for further development.  It does not imply
WG agreement with the details or ideas expressed in the draft
(if, indeed, details are present) although, at some stages of
development, it might.  I think that position is consistent with
RFC 7221, noting that it says "might be a blank sheet...".

> It's the document editor and WG chair's jobs to make sure that
> WG drafts do in fact reflect WG status. If a WG participant
> disagrees with the editor and the chair that the draft
> reflects WG consensus, they can appeal to an AD or the IESG as
> a whole.

Sure, but let's be very clear about what that consensus is about
or what it means.  

This is the same distinction I hope the IESG intended to make
when they issued as statement that any document published in the
IETF Steam -- including Informational or Experimental ones --
needed IETF consensus.  Consensus that information is good to
publish or that an experiment is worth documenting and
performing does not constitute (and, IMO, should not require)
IETF agreement with the ideas being expressed or even that the
experimental spec would be worth standardizing if the experiment
is later judged as having succeeded.

>...

> This is from RFC 2418:
> 
> 6.3. Document Editor
> 
>    Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document,
> or set of    documents, that capture the results of the
> group's work.  A working    group generally designates a
> person or persons to serve as the Editor    for a particular
> document.  The Document Editor is responsible for    ensuring
> that the contents of the document accurately reflect the
> decisions that have been made by the working group.
>...

Right.  But, again, the WG may have made no decisions more
specific than "this draft, in its current state, is a good
starting point for future discussion".  And that would be true
even if an editor included strawman (or some other straw person
or object) positions intended to stimulate discussion rather
than being expected to reflect WG consensus.

>...
   
best,
   john