Yeah, we've been inconsistent. And I'm not saying we should block the document from being published on the IETF stream. But maybe the IESG wants to put a note on it or something. Lars On 2014-1-27, at 14:55, Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail