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