 part of the consensus means that the whole WG does not have to agree, but it is enough if most of the people voicing their opinion agree. The IETF has two main types of documents: temporary document called Internet- Drafts, and permanent documents called Request For Comments (RFC). Internet-Drafts are documents that represent work in progress. An Internet-Draft has a lifetime of six months, during which it will have to be resubmitted again, approved to be an RFC, or it will cease to exist. There are two types of Internet-Drafts - individual submissions and WG Internet-Drafts. The individual submissions are, as the name suggests, something that somebody has submitted. There is no barrier to submitting one, and also no quality or content control. Thus, it mainly represents the submitter's opinion. The WG Internet- Drafts, however, have to be adopted by a WG. Therefore, they represent the interest of that working group to work on the topic. RFCs come in many flavors as well. The real specifications that represent the IETF's consensus are either on the Standards Track or Best Current Practice (BCP). A standards track RFC is usually a protocol specification or a protocol framework. BCPs describe the currently best found way to implement or deploy something, which the IETF community thinks the industry and the Internet community should follow. In addition to standards track, and BCPs, IETF also produces Experimental, and Informational RFCs. An Experi- mental RFC describes a protocol which the IETF does not know, yet, if it is useful, works well, or might even be harmful in the Internet. However, the experimental status allows people to document the experiment. Informational RFCs range from specifications that somebody wanted to publish, but for some reason or other did not go through the full IETF standardization process, over requirements documents, to even April fool jokes. If an Informational RFC has the pub- lishing date of April 1st, one should be a bit careful. This has not stopped people from implementing such 