> > -- 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
