Here is the response from the ISE on our inquiry
about our process. (Sorry I missed the April 14 note somehow.)
The way I read this is:
We need some words to indicate that these are not
IETF Standards, but informational. (point 3 below.)
We might want to consider having an AFS WG in the IETF
(Point 4 below), but as I understand it, there are complications
with doing this because IBM still owns the name "AFS" and has
some restrictions on any code derived from the IBM/AFS.
(Please correct me if I am wrong on this.)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization and Independent Submissions
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:42:29 +1200
From: Nevil Brownlee <[email protected]>
To: Douglas E. Engert <[email protected]>
CC: ISE <[email protected]>
Hi Douglas:
I emailed you an update back on 14 April, here's a copy ..
Cheers, Nevil
. 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 14/04/11 4:52 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
Hi Douglas:
Jeff did stop by during my Office Hours in Prague, that was helpful.
After discussing it with my Editorial Board at IETF 80, we feel
that:
1. In the long term we will probably explore the notion of having
new input streams for non-IETF SDOs who want to publish via
the RFC Editor. However, that's not likely to happen in the
next year (or two).
2. Independent submissions documenting protocols have been published
as Informational, with a clear statement up front that explains
that they are not, in any way, IETF standards. Such RFCs have
typically had titles like "Vendor X's foo-bar protocol."
3. When I read your drafts, they feel like Standards Track drafts.
If we go ahead with them as Independent Submissions, they'll need
to be revised to make them feel Informational.
4. I Asked the Apps Area Directors for their opinion, Alexy Melnikov
replied:
"I think doing this in Apps is Ok, assuming that the group wants to
revise drafts under IETF change control and other rules. But if the
group just wants to get things published, then there should be no
conflict with existing Apps work. I think it might be worth double
checking with the group about whether they want a WG in Apps."
Overall, it does seem that it could be worth your swapping email with
the Apps Area Directors (Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre) about
getting a WG going.
So, those are your optins - please let me know how you'd like to
proceed.
Cheers, Nevil (ISE)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS
Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland
FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
