--On Thursday, June 20, 2013 22:14 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? FWIW, many IETF Stream Info documents definitely are "matters of IETF consensus", even more so when those documents are the consequence of a WG request to publish. IMO, if a document really isn't an IETf product in any way and has no relationship to IETF consensus, it would be far more reasonable for ADs to simply decline to sponsor it --leaving the document to the Independent Submission Editor or outside the RFC Series-- rather than trying to diddle around with boilerplate... especially since we know that people rarely pay attention to stock boilerplate. The option of sponsoring individual submission informational documents is one that the community granted the IESG in order to give you folks a reasonable way to deal with circumstances that were more or less unusual. You don't need to use it. john p.s. I started a much more detailed response to Ben, but I think the essence of it is above. IMO, a discussion that amounts to whether or not an AD used bad judgment by choosing to sponsor an individual Informational submission (or whether ADs should have that power at all) should not become part of evaluating a particular document's appropriateness.