Nevil,
I hope that Jeff had a chance to talk to you at the IETF meeting
and fill you in on what we the AFS3 group is doing. I have not
heard from him, so am writing to you directly.
We are interested in the outcome of the OEFT meeting
and if there are any long term implications, and if there
is anything we can do to address them.
Thanks.
On 3/24/2011 6:48 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
Hi Douglas:
Your enquiry has raised quite a few interesting questions.
My Editorial Board are generally supportive of publishing material such
as AFS-3, but are wary of the long-term implications of that.
We'll be discussing it further at OEFT 80 in Prague next week,
I'll get back to you as soon as we've reached consensus.
Cheers, Nevil (ISE)
PS: I'll be doing ISE Office Hours in Prague, Mon and Tue from
0900 to 1115. If you're around then, I'll be happy to discuss
this with you.
On 03/18/2011 07:38 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
As you may have seen, there has been a group formed of developers, to
standardize
the AFS protocols. As one of the co-chairs, I am writing to you to get your
options on our process and how these drafts can be moved forward as Independent
Submissions.
A history of AFS can be found at: http://openafs.org
A number of independent interoperable implementations of AFS have been developed
over the years and for a number of reasons, using the IETF Independent
Submissions
track has been deemed to be the way to go.
The foundations of the process and the group can be found in:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-01.txt
Many of the members of the group are current or former IETF WG chairs and
are familiar with the general IETF submission process, but not with the
Independent Submissions. So I am contacting you, the IS editor, to get
you option on the process and if we are doing what would be expected.
All of the drafts have -afs3- in the name.
This first draft has been submitted as Informational and has passed a last
call on the mailing list:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-09.txt
These have been submitted but and are being considered by the group:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-deason-afs3-getsizev2-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-deason-afs3-type-time-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tkeiser-afs3-volser-tlv-04.txt
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-bos-identities-00.txt
Our group is based on:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-01.txt
So we would like to know if these look acceptable as Independent
Submissions and what we should be doing with the first one of these,
draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-09.
Thanks.
--
Douglas E. Engert <[email protected]>
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
(630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
