Hi Stewart. > At the time when I was getting this ready for the IESG, there was a strong > view by the IESG that the IETF stream should not be used to publish > this type of document, i.e. that this type of draft should go to the > ISE. The view was that there were far too many AD sponsored drafts. > There was also a strong view expressed to me that the concept of IETF > consensus (necessary for AD sponsorship) was inappropriate if the > IETF could not change the technical solution, which it could not do if > the document was describing an existing deployed system. If the above is really the case, I would have expected an IESG note to the community documenting/proposing that position and allowing the community to comment, as it seems to me to be a significant change in policy and/or exisiting practice. Did I miss such a note? And on this specific point: > There was also a strong view expressed to me that the concept of IETF > consensus (necessary for AD sponsorship) was inappropriate if the > IETF could not change the technical solution, which it could not do if > the document was describing an existing deployed system. This would be a very significant change in policy wrt what the IETF has historically published. I would not expect the IESG to make such a shift unilaterally without significant consultation with the community. Thanks! Thomas