idnits 2.17.1 draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2026, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1995-09-12) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (5 March 2020) is 1485 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. M. Halpern, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Updates: 2026 (if approved) E. K. Rescorla, Ed. 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice Mozilla 6 Expires: 6 September 2020 5 March 2020 8 IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus 9 draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-04 11 Abstract 13 This document proposes that the IETF never publish any IETF Stream 14 RFCs without IETF rough consensus. This updates RFC 2026. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 September 2020. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 40 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 41 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 42 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 43 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 44 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 45 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 3. Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 1. Introduction 61 IETF procedures, as defined by [RFC2026], allow for Informational or 62 Experimental RFCs to be published without IETF rough consensus. For 63 context, it should be remembered that this RFC predates the 64 separation of the various streams (e.g. IRTF, IAB, and Independent.) 65 When it was written, there were only "RFC"s. 67 As a consequence, it was permitted for the IESG to approve an 68 Internet Draft for publication as an RFC without IETF rough 69 consensus. 71 2. Terminology 73 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 74 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 75 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 76 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 77 capitals, as shown here. 79 3. Action 81 The IETF MUST NOT publish RFCs on the IETF Stream without 82 establishing IETF rough consensus for publication. 84 4. Discussion 86 The IETF procedures prior to publication of this BCP permited such 87 informational or experimental publication without IETF rough 88 consensus. In 2007 the IESG issued a statement saying that no 89 document will be issued without first conducting an IETF Last Call 90 [IESG-STATE-AD]. While this apparently improved the situation, 91 looking closely it made it worse. Rather than publishing documents 92 without verifying that there is rough consensus, as the wording in 93 [RFC2026] suggests, this had the IESG explicitly publishing documents 94 on the IETF Stream that have failed to achieve rough consensus. 96 One could argue that there is a need for publishing some documents 97 that the community can not agree on. However, we have an explicit 98 path for such publication, namely the Independent Stream. Or, for 99 research documents, the IRTF Stream, which explicitly publishes many 100 minority opinion Informational RFCs. 102 If this proposal is not accepted, there is still a minor problem to 103 be addressed. When a non-consensus document is published, the 104 current boilerplate simply omits the sentence claiming that there is 105 consensus. If the community feels that we need to keep the right for 106 the IESG to publish Informational or Experimental RFCs without IETF 107 rough consensus, then please, the IAB SHOULD use its authority over 108 the boilerplate for RFCs to make the boilerplate explicit rather than 109 relying on readers to detect a missing sentence. 111 Editors Note: The above paragraph and this note should be removed 112 prior to publication as an RFC, as the paragraph will then be OBE. 114 5. IANA Considerations 116 No values are assigned in this document, no registries are created, 117 and there is no action assigned to the IANA by this document. 119 6. Security Considerations 121 This document introduces no new security considerations. It is a 122 process document about changes to the rules for certain corner cases 123 in publishing IETF Stream RFCs. However, this procedure will prevent 124 publication of IETF stream documents that have not reached rough 125 consensus about their security aspects, thus potentially improving 126 security aspects of IETF stream documents. 128 7. Normative References 130 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 131 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 132 . 134 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 135 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 136 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 137 . 139 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 140 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 141 May 2017, . 143 8. Informative References 145 [IESG-STATE-AD] 146 "IESG Statement on Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of 147 Documents", 148 . 151 Authors' Addresses 153 Joel M. Halpern (editor) 154 Ericsson 155 P. O. Box 6049 156 Leesburg, VA 20178 157 United States of America 159 Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 161 Eric K. Rescorla (editor) 162 Mozilla 163 331 E. Evelyn Ave 164 Mountain View, CA 94101 165 United States of America 167 Email: ekr@rtfm.com