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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-- 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?

Barry


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]