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

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> From sob@newdev.harvard.edu  Thu Jan 30 07:34:10 2003
  *> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:34:05 -0500 (EST)
  *> From: Scott  Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
  *> To: narten@us.ibm.com, randy@psg.com
  *> Subject: Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]
  *> Cc: braden@ISI.EDU, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, kireeti@juniper.net,
  *>    rja@extremenetworks.com
  *> X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
  *> 
  *> > and they meant the current 2434 definition
  *> 
  *> or they misread 2434 (or did not read 2434) and thought they knew 
  *> what "IETF consensus" means
  *> 
  *> Scott
  *> 

I would say that John Klensin's example from SMTP-EXT showed that
the IESG may not be entirely clear on what "IETF consensus" means.

Bob