ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

2013-06-20 22:54:44

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.