On 7 Mar 2011, at 21:40, Derrick Brashear wrote: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-08 (when > the page appears, it has been submitted already) changes to > intended status experimental, and otherwise matches the 7 bis which > achieved consensus previously.
Okay, so this isn't the way to go about this. "Experimental" refers to the IETF's stream of "Experimental" RFCs - it's an IETF track, that we shouldn't be publishing in. My understanding is that in order to use the independent submissions track all of our documents have to be "Informational" - so I suspect you'll be getting a load of queries from puzzled IETFers around about now. My understanding was that in order to move this forwards, our working group chairs were going to talk to the Independent Submissions Editor. Has anyone started on that yet? Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
