On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.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. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
