--On Thursday, June 20, 2013 22:14 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
FWIW, the IESG has discussed this in the context of other
documents, and is looking at boilerplate that does not say
that the document is a "product of the IETF", and makes it
clear that the content is not a matter of IETF consensus. If
that sort of boilerplate was used, do you think that would be
sufficient?
FWIW, many IETF Stream Info documents definitely are "matters of
IETF consensus", even more so when those documents are the
consequence of a WG request to publish. IMO, if a document
really isn't an IETf product in any way and has no relationship
to IETF consensus, it would be far more reasonable for ADs to
simply decline to sponsor it --leaving the document to the
Independent Submission Editor or outside the RFC Series-- rather
than trying to diddle around with boilerplate... especially
since we know that people rarely pay attention to stock
boilerplate.
The option of sponsoring individual submission informational
documents is one that the community granted the IESG in order to
give you folks a reasonable way to deal with circumstances that
were more or less unusual. You don't need to use it.
john
p.s. I started a much more detailed response to Ben, but I think
the essence of it is above. IMO, a discussion that amounts to
whether or not an AD used bad judgment by choosing to sponsor an
individual Informational submission (or whether ADs should have
that power at all) should not become part of evaluating a
particular document's appropriateness.