Hello Paul,
Many thanks for the citations below, this is extremely clear. Going back to the original question/pace that you gave a -1, would that change if in the text "IETF Consensus" was replaced with "IESG Approval"?
Regards, Martin.
At 10:56 05/05/11, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>At 4:15 PM +0900 5/10/05, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>What's the difference between "IETF consensus" (for which you gave a -1)
>>and "it's up to the IESG" (which seems what you think we should let happen)?
>
> From RFC 2434:
>
> IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG, but
> there is no requirement that the request be documented in an
> RFC (though the IESG has discretion to request documents or
> other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis).
>
> IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
> consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
> RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
> input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
> (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists).
>
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--Internet Mail Consortium
>
