IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus
draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-02-05 (latest revision 2020-01-21)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Best Current Practice
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Christopher Wood
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-01-17)
IESG IESG state In Last Call (ends 2020-02-21)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alissa Cooper
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Network Working Group                                 J. M. Halpern, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Updates: 2026 (if approved)                          E. K. Rescorla, Ed.
Intended status: Best Current Practice                           Mozilla
Expires: 24 July 2020                                    21 January 2020

           IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus
          draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02

Abstract

   This document proposes that the IETF never publish any IETF stream
   RFCs without IETF rough consensus.  This updates RFC 2026.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 July 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Halpern & Rescorla        Expires 24 July 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             IETF Doc Consensus               January 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Proposal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   IETF procedures, as defined by [RFC2026] allow for Informational or
   Experimental RFCs to be published without IETF rough consensus.  For
   context, it should be remembered that this RFC predates the
   separation of the various streams (e.g.  IRTF, IAB, and Independent.)
   When it was written, there were only "RFC"s.

   As a consequence, it is currently permitted for the IETF to approve
   an Internet Draft for publication as an RFC without IETF rough
   consensus.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Proposal

   The IETF MUST NOT publish RFCs on the IETF stream without
   establishing IETF rough consensus for publication.

4.  Discussion

   The current procedures permit such publication.  In 2007 the IESG
   issued a statement saying that no document will be issued without
   first conducting an IETF Last Call [IESG-STATE-AD].  While this
   apparently improves the situation, looking closely it makes it worse.
   Rather than publishing documents without verifying that there is
   rough consensus, as the wording in [RFC2026] suggests, this has the
   IESG explicitly publishing documents on the IETF stream that have
   failed to achieve rough consensus.

Halpern & Rescorla        Expires 24 July 2020                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             IETF Doc Consensus               January 2020

   One could argue that there is a need for publishing some documents
   that the community can not agree on.  However, we have an explicit
   procedure for such publication, namely the Independent Stream.  Or,
   for research documents, the IRTF stream, which explicitly publishes
   many minority opinion Informational RFCs.

   If this proposal is not accepted, there is still a minor problem to
   be addressed.  When a non-consensus document is published, the
   current boilerplate simply omits the sentence claiming that there is
Show full document text