On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
-- Why does this need to be published as an IETF stream RFC? If I understand
correctly, this documents an existing protocol as implemented by commercial
products. I agree with Martin's comment that there is value in publishing
this sort of thing, but I applaud the Adobe and the author for publishing it
so other implementations can interoperate with their products. But that could
have done that in an independent stream document, or even in an Adobe
published document. (Perhaps even in a prettier format ;-) ) If we publish
this as an IETF stream document, then I think it needs stronger clarification
that it is not an IETF consensus doc than just its informational status.
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?
I think that would help, depending on the specific language. My concerns about
change control, authoritative specs, etc might still apply depending on the
boilerplate details.
Thanks!
Ben.