On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 09:05 -0500, Douglas E. Engert 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.)
I think what Nevil is talking about is changing the whole tone of documents so that they sound more descriptive rather than prescriptive. That's something I'm going to push back on fairly hard; it's perfectly appropriate to publish protocol specifications, with prescriptive language, as informational documents. In fact, the IETF itself does this all the time, which it wishes to publish a spec which will not be an Internet standard. > 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.) I don't think those issues are insurmountable. We can certainly work around the trademark issues by renaming the protocol. Any restrictions on the OpenAFS code are spelled out in the IPL, and apply to code that derives from OpenAFS. I don't see anything there that prevents writing of protocol documentation, and I don't see anything that prevents development of new protocol bits. However, we had the "should we be a working group" discussion before, and mostly came to the conclusion that we should not. We certainly could revisit that discussion, but I think most of Jeff's arguments still apply. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
