--On Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:27:25 AM +0000 Simon Wilkinson
<[email protected]> wrote:
The first is that there has been no movement since last year on
establishing a clearer footing for the work done on this list. The draft
I published suggests that the g.c.o registrars bootstrap the process, but
so far they haven't had sufficient time to do so. At some point, if they
remain unable to get it off the ground, we're going to have to come up
with another mechanism.
There's actually been some movement, in that we've added some registrars.
Tom Kula joined the registrars in June, and since then we've had a
volunteer to represent Arla. The transition of the registries themselves
will be an ongoing process, probably handled on a registry-by-registry
basis as we handled requests. However, none of that should prevent us from
running an election.
What does prevent us from running an election is that we haven't yet
formally demonstrated consensus on the process document. To that end, I
will shortly (within the next week or so) issue a consensus call on this
list, probably including copies to other relevant mailing lists, and with a
deadline to be determined. At the end of that period, if the registrars
believe there is indeed a consensus, then we will begin the bootstrap
process as described in the document.
There is also a general issue about how to publish the wider set of AFS
protocol documents - the current proposal is that they go through the
independent submission stream, and eventually appear as RFCs. To date, I
don't think we've approached anyone with regards to this plan, and the
whole RFC publishing processing is going through significant change at
present.
At this point, most of the questions about what the process will look like
have been resolved. The new structure is described in RFC5620, and the
contract for the RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher roles was awarded
to Association Management Solutions LLC, the same entity which operates the
Internet-Drafts repository and maintains other infrastructure and provides
meeting planning services for the IETF. They have recruited two members of
the RFC-Editor staff at ISI to act in senior roles, assuring the continuity
of the process of preparing and publishing RFC's.
At present the IAB has not yet selected an Independent Stream Editor, but
from what I can tell, that process appears to be proceeding smoothly.
Before we begin publishing AFS-related documents via the independent
stream, we probably want to wait for the appointment of an ISE and have a
conversation with that individual.
We need to resolve this before things like extended callbacks
can move forwards.
We need to resolve this before things like extended callbacks can be
published in final form. In no way should lack of resolution on the RFC
publication question hinder us from developing, discussing, and refining a
proposal, eventually reaching a consensus, and beginning implementationi.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
