Fine. I will submit draft 8 shortly then (after the registrar considerations are complete)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote: > --On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:00:05 PM -0500 Derrick Brashear > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 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. > > The way I read Simon's document, we have three states: > > - Documents start out in "draft" state, which means they are still > under development; this includes both documents representing > proposals from individual participants and documents the group > is working on (really, the line there is fuzzy at best; we have > no formal "adoption" step and IMHO don't need one). > > This has nothing to do with being an internet-draft, which is > about having a particular format and being archived and > distributed in a particular way. It also has nothing to do > with the IETF's "Draft Standard" status, which is a step on > the way to becoming an Internet standard. > > - When the group has formed a consensus that a document is done and > should eventually become a standard, its status is changed to > "experimental", reflecting the fact that we don't want to call > something finished that in fact has never been implemented or > tested. Again, this has nothing to do with the "Experimental" > status attached to RFC's, which generally denotes a document > that actually describes an experiment, or at least a protocol > that is the subject of experimentation. > > - Once a protocol has been fully implemented, tested, and we are > satisfied that it is sufficiently mature, its status is changed > to "standard". This, again, is distinct from the IETF's > "Standard" -- we don't get to define Internet standards. > > > Again according to Simon's document, standard" documents are submitted as > RFC's (with status "Informational"); "draft" and "experimental" documents > are distributed as internet-drafts. This is because an "experimental" > document is by definition not mature, and may be expected to change as a > result of problems found during implementation and testing. The process of > publishing an RFC takes a while and is a substantial amount of work for the > RFC Production Center. We want to limit the amount of load we create. > > -- Jeff > -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
