[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]

To: RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>
Subject: Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:31:07 -0500
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, narten@us.ibm.com, braden@isi.edu, ietf@ietf.org, kireeti@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <1261B871-3460-11D7-AE59-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com>
References: <200301300120.h0U1KQo02850@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu><1261B871-3460-11D7-AE59-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com>

> > I don't know what can be done a this point to change the terminology
> > in 2434. It's been in use for some 4 years now...
> 
> It would seem quite simple for you to take the text of RFC-2434,
> edit the text appropriately to pick a more clear and accurate
> term, then run it past the community for BCP.

well, the phrase "IETF Consensus" would still be embedded in several 
other documents.  are you claiming that it's simple to update these
also?

Follow-Ups:
- Whether we should require "IETF consensus"
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>

References:
- "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]
  - From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
- Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]
  - From: RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>

Prev by Date: Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]
Next by Date: Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]
Previous by thread: Re: What review is required for "IETF Consensus"?
Next by thread: Whether we should require "IETF consensus"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread