At Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:20:04 +0000,
Eggert, Lars wrote:
[1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
On 2014-1-25, at 21:24, Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
wrote:
It seems from the document that the content is descriptive of something
implemented by a single vendor. I applaud putting that information into the
public domain, but I don't understand the meaning of IETF consensus with
respect
to this document.
+1
The Independent RFC Stream would seem more appropriate.
Well, if you run a document through the RFC Stream publication
process, it doesn't get the same level/type of review as does running
it through the IETF. At least in theory.
So if one wanted to get IETF folk to review it, running it through
IETF consensus (or something) doesn't seem unreasonable.
I don't know that we actually have an exact category for these kinds
of documents. Indeed, the categories we have are rather course, and
one can identify plenty of past documents that one might argue could
have/should have been published in a different stream than it
was. E.g., looking backwards for "cisco" documents published as RFCs:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6812
Title: Cisco Service-Level Assurance Protocol
Status: Informational
Stream: Independent
Date: January 2013
I-D Tag: draft-cisco-sla-protocol-04.txt
It was published in the RFC editor stream.
On the other hand:
RFC 6759
Title: Cisco Systems Export of Application
Information in IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX)
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date: November 2012
I-D Tag: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-10.txt
It was published via the IETF stream.
Thomas