On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:05:39 -0500 "Douglas E. Engert" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.) They don't "feel" Informational, apparently. Is the lack of an explicit note saying that they are not IETF standards-track documents all that this refers to? > 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.) An AFS IETF WG was discussed before, and as far as I have ever known, the results of all such discussions were "we don't want to do that", one of the reasons being that some IESG members told us it wasn't a good idea. There as a huge thread in 2008 about this, among other things, most of which I don't really remember. But I _think_ this post encompasses the reasons for not doing it: <http://www.openafs.org/pipermail/afs3-standardization/2008-August/000190.html> If there are different/more reasons, I would really appreciate a summary. Every time this question comes up I have a hard time remembering why we aren't forming an IETF WG. I usually end up finding that thread again and reading most of it to remember why. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
