On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote: > --On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 02:27:27 PM -0600 "Douglas E. Engert" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/12/2011 11:54 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote: >>> >>> On 1/12/2011 12:39 PM, Douglas E. Engert 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. >> >> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html >> Says: >> The desired category (Informational or Experimental) of the RFC. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt >> Says: >> Indicating what intended status the I-D if it is published as >> an RFC is fine; however, this should be done with the words >> "Intended status: <status>" on the left side of the first page. >> >> I am not sure if "desired category" == "Intended status". > > It is. In the IETF, that field is used to describe the status the document > is expected to eventually have, once it is published as an RFC. It appears > only in Internet-Drafts, not in published RFC's. > > >> From draft-wilkinison-afs3-standardisation-00 Section 2.3.3 it looks >> like we intend to keep documents as "draft", "experimental" or "standard". > > Yes, but those are our designations. If you publish an internet-draft with > "Intended status: Standard", people will think you intend for it to become > an Internet Standard, which is not what we want them to think. It might be > reasonable to say "Intended status: AFS3 Standard" or something like that, > if you want to distinguish documents that are expected to work through the > process from those that are expected to go away. > > >> When you submitted it the first time, did you include any reviewers? > > I don't believe this document has ever been submitted to the RFC-Editor. I > don't think it should be until we actually consider it a "standard". IIRC, > part of the goal was to minimize the burden we place on the RFC-Editor.
I assume we do now consider it ratified, and thus it should be submitted. Should I do so now, and what should the status be? Currently the document (with the ratified text explaining implicit and explicit added) is marked to be draft-08, but I don't know what the next step should be. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
