--On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:39:53 AM -0600 "Douglas E. Engert"
<[email protected]> wrote:
The way I am reading draft-wilkinison-afs3-standardisation-00 Section
2.3.3, the pts draft should be moved to experimental, which would require
the author to add the explanation and submit it to the RFC editors
as experimental.
No, I don't think so. My understanding is that in our process,
"experimental" is the state a document sits in while we implement it and
make sure it works, before proceeding to "standard". These do not
correspond to the IETF's "Experimental" or standards-track states, and an
afs3-stds "experimental" document is published in the I-D repository, not
as an RFC (see the third paragraph).
Once we consider a document "standard", it can be submitted to the
RFC-Editor as an independent-stream Informational document (because really,
Experimental and Informational are the only states we can have).
As a group, we really ought to nail this stuff down and publish a charter,
but working a couple of documents through the process first seems like a
good idea.
Section 2.3.3 also says: "it needs to be confirmed that the RFC Editor
is happy with this."
Yeah; someone is going to need to have a conversation with the RSE and ISE
about our wanting to use the RFC Series as the publication of record for
our standards.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
