On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:12 PM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote:
> 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. I certainly didn't mean this to be a discussion of AD judgement. I suspect this would not be the first time the IETF has published an informational RFC that describes a non-IETF protocol, so there's probably precedent for doing so. It might be worth discussing whether that's a good precedent. I also recognize that the authors have done a _lot_ of work on this draft, so this entire discussion is probably a bit unfair to them. I actually do hope it gets published somewhere. Thanks! Ben.
