Andrew Deason wrote:
What is draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names currently waiting on? It
does not seem clear who is supposed to be doing what at this point. We
achieved consensus on the actual content awhile ago, right?
As Jeffrey Hutzelman stated in his mail to the list from Feb 1:
> 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.
I think it should be submitted again with status "Informational" as
"experimental" rather than as "draft".
We also should have a page on the openafs website which contains all the
documents the afs3-standardization has agreed to so that they can easily be
found by any developer.and cannot disappear after their expiration date.
BTW, I think the links to "Browse Source" still shows the old CVS contents and
not the source in git. I suspect the same for the "Daily Snapshots".
Hartmut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartmut Reuter e-mail [email protected]
phone +49-89-3299-1328
fax +49-89-3299-1301
RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching) web http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~hwr
Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the
Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
