Re: FW: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> From bwijnen@lucent.com  Tue Jan 14 19:33:00 2003
  *> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
  *> To: "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>
  *> Cc: "Bob Braden (E-mail)" <braden@ISI.EDU>
  *> Subject: FW: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
  *> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:32:45 +0100
  *> MIME-Version: 1.0
  *> X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
  *> 
  *> Bob Braden answers Kireeti:
  *> 
  *> >  *> If code points are to be allocated from the space to be allocated by
  *> >  *> IETF Consensus, I strongly suggest that a *Standards Track* document be
  *> >  *> written, with more detail on the messages, especially their processing.
  *> >
  *> > Indeed, that is what "IETF consensus" means, isn't it?
  *> >
  *> >
  *> > Bob Braden
  *> 
  *> Now I thought that we (IESG) recently discussed this and that we agreed
  *> that "IETF consensus" only means that we IETF Last Call the document,
  *> and not that it MUST be stds track or bcp.
  *> 
  *> It would be good if we clear this up and if RFC-Editor would at least say
  *> the same as we do.
  *> 
  *> Bert
  *> 

Bert,

Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with the RFC Editor.  It
is an IANA function.  I am involved with my IANA-expert-on-RSVP hat.

If the IESG in their collective wisdom modifies the meaning of terms,
they need to inform all those involved with the IANA.

Bob