SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Assuming that there was rough consensus (I agree with you that it was > not rough at all), the document would still not satisfy the following > statement: > > "It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has > received public review and has been approved for publication by > the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
I actually don't know whether the intent is to attach that boilerplate: it certainly isn't present in the I-D. I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a statement; and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents gives any assurance of "consensus of the IETF community". In the interests of truth in advertising, perhaps we should be looking towards boilerplate more like: " " This document represents the consensus of the V6OPS WG... (Disclaimer: I date from when RFCs didn't claim any sort of consensus; and I'd be happier if we simply avoided such claims on Informational track RFCs.) -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
