> > Anyone can write an internet draft. Getting concensus on it is the hard part. > Not really. RFCs in the Informational category don't need consensus:[1]

In practice, that's not been true for many years. The process was recently clarified: "IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus" https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8789.html

Oh, Thanks for the pointer! "published: June 2020" — no kidding with the "recently" :)

> Not really. RFCs in the Informational category don't need consensus.

They don't, but they also need to not conflict with any IETF activity:

"4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs

[...]

To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the IETF community." [https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2.3]

Apart from that, it's unclear to me what the document is actually trying to do [cf. my comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23769617]

The IESG will request non-publication of Individual Submission Editor (ISE) stream RFCs when they would cause harm. Something like GNS would almost certainly be allowed.

Nothing you wrote contradicts what GP wrote. (Your text, other than the first two words, also appears correct but doesn’t address GP’s argument.)

GP claims getting consensus is hard. You argue that it’s not needed. Correct, but tangential.

Gp clearly implies getting consensus would be the hard part for this ID to become an “IETF document”. You can strip all context and argue that every single statement is correct in isolation, but that’s not how communication works.

This pointless bickering also adds zero new info, so I’ll stop here.