Subject: AD sponsored Consensus vs. draft version

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 13:51:56 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

Say I have an AD sponsored draft and verison -01 gets consensus at the last IETF meeting.  Then I make some changes and now submit draft -02.

Does the consensus remain intact from draft-01 to draft-02?

How would that be reflected in the -02 version document?

Is there another conensus needed before publishing?

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:36:11 -0700

I imagine that depends on what the changes were.  If -02 contains changes
that alter the meaning of the text relative to -01, you could argue that
consensus needs to be reaffirmed.

What's the context?

-MSK

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:52 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Say I have an AD sponsored draft and verison -01 gets consensus at the
> last IETF meeting.  Then I make some changes and now submit draft -02.

---

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:10:48 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Murray,

The context is here <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/history/>

You can see where last week Barry had changed the consensus to Yes.  The change was made between the upload dates of version -02 and -03.  It was actually after the last IETF meeting but I guess now that I think of it, I only remember Ben asking for a hum on wether or not it was to be AD sponsored and not a hum for the draft itself.  For consensus on the draft itself, the AD sponsor would have put something on the mailing list right?

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:33:18 -0400

It looks like Barry change the "Consensus Required" flag.  The history 
shortened that to  just "Consensus".  As far as I can tell, given that 
this document is intended for BCP, the document does indeed require IETF 
rough consensus.  Setting the flag does not represent Barry calling the 
consensus, but rather him recording the fact that such a call will be 
needed.
Everything looks right.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/26/2020 3:10 PM, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> The context is here 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/history/> 
> 
> You can see where last week Barry had changed the consensus to Yes.  The 
> change was made between the upload dates of version -02 and -03.  It was 
> actually after the last IETF meeting but I guess now that I think of it, 
> I only remember Ben asking for a hum on wether or not it was to be AD 
> sponsored and not a hum for the draft itself.  For consensus on the 
> draft itself, the AD sponsor would have put something on the mailing 
> list right?

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:45:24 -0500

Specifically that flag is _only_ an indication to downstream processing 
that the consensus boilerplate is expected to be used if the document is 
prepared as an RFC.

The field is horribly named, and causes this kind of misapprehension 
periodically. It needs to be renamed (and that is already on the list of 
things to do).

RjS

On 8/26/20 2:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> this document is intended for BCP, the document does indeed require 
> IETF rough consensus.  Setting the flag does not represent Barry 
> calling the consensus, but rather him recording the fact that such a 
> call will be needed.
> Everything looks right.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>> You can see where last week Barry had changed the consensus to Yes.  
>> The change was made between the upload dates of version -02 and -03.  
>> It was actually after the last IETF meeting but I guess now that I 
>> think of it, I only remember Ben asking for a hum on wether or not it 
>> was to be AD sponsored and not a hum for the draft itself.  For 
>> consensus on the draft itself, the AD sponsor would have put 
>> something on the mailing list right?
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:54:48 -0500

Hi, Robert,

> periodically. It needs to be renamed (and that is already on the list of

Thank you for this!

We routinely had WG chairs that set it because they had *working group*
consensus, before they requested publication.

Just to follow on Joel's answer to Timothy's question - if the document is
to be published in the IETF stream, and consensus is required, either the
document achieves consensus (in whatever form), or it would not be
published, post-https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8789/. So, "IESG
Approval" is the key indicator of whether that happened or not.

Best,

Spencer

> >> <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/history/>
>
> >>

---

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:11:03 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Spencer,

Someone should add rfc8789 to the list of updates on this page :  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:04:04 -0700

Looks like it's there to me; the header at that URL says:

Updated by: 3667 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3667>, 3668
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3668>, 3932
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3932>, 3978
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3978>, 3979
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979>, 5378
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378>, BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
5657 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5657>, 5742
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742>, 6410
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410>, 7100
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7100>, 7127
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127>, 7475
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7475>, 8179
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179>, 8789
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8789> Errata Exist

Is that what you meant?

-MSK

---

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:36:30 -0400 (EDT)

Yup!  there it is.  Thanks Murphy

On 08/28/2020 6:04 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:

Updated by: 3667, 3668, 3932, 3978, 3979, 5378, BEST CURRENT PRACTICE

5657, 5742, 6410, 7100, 7127, 7475, 8179, 8789 Errata Exist

Is that what you meant?

-MSK

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:11 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Spencer,