+1 to Informational. Let's get this documentation out there in a stable reference. That doesn't preclude publishing a standards-track version in the future... On 11/22/09 5:17 PM, Lawrence Conroy wrote: > Hi Cullen, folks, > It seems to me ... > There have been a number of cases where things are not developed within > the IETF > but are "out there". > Whether or not folk LIKE those schemes/the companies that promulgate > them/the author(s) > /the document style/the weather is not really important. > Having an Informational RFC to describe these protocols or file formats > is useful. > If nothing else, it tells you what the heck is going on down the wire. > IF the IESG wants to tag on a comment that the described protocol/format > is broken > or conflicts with a more sensible IETF-anointed approach, it can and does. > > I support this as an Informational document. I would like this > description out now. > Burying it in a WG to try (and fail) to turn this into an IETF > standards-track > document is not helpful. I fear that someone will go postal if we do > Zeroconf again. > There has been Sooooo much history that it is simply not worth repeating > the pain. > (I seem to recall discussions on this starting out @IETF-41 in LA, > since which time it's in very wide use "out there" :). > > Please can we ship this as an Informational, and soon? > > all the best, > Lawrence > > On 18 Nov 2009, at 15:41, Cullen Jennings wrote: >> Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards track >> vs informational? >> >> Thanks, Cullen
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf