On 5/2/2011 9:21 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
Hi Douglas:
I have checked with the Apps and Transport ADs, the response is
"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."
You've said that you just want to get the drafts published so as
to make them available, and proposed a paragraph for the 'Status of
this Memo.' Given all that discussion, I'll go ahead with publishing
your first draft, i.e. draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-09.
Great.
Your paragraph was
"This document was produced by the AFS3-standardization group as
extensions and updates to the existing AFS protocols. The existing
AFS protocols are not IETF standard protocols and these extensions
to that protocol are not to be considered IETF standards, they
simply record the work of the AFS3-Standardization group."
Note: I've edited this slightly, is that OK with you?
It looks OK to me, I would like comments from our group.
Also, Independent Submissions get a final review by IESG (RFC 5742),
anything you can do to minimise confusion with an 'IETF standard' is
worthwhile.
Agreed.
Concerning the comment above about "IETF change control and other
rules," remember that once published, RFCs never change, you'd have to
publish new ones. Also, assuming that we get the first document
safely published, there's no guarantee that any later ones would be.
In particular, you should not assume that a group of inter-related
drafts would be published simultaneously.
I don't think that will be a problem.
Sorry to sound so careful, but we're breaking new ground here!
So now, if you're happy to go ahead, accepting the cavets above,
my next step is to find some independent reviewers for the draft above.
Can you suggest a few people (and their email addresses) that I could
ask, please?
I personally think it is OK, I would like to get consensus
from our group. Most of the people involved with AFS are
part of the group. But I think we can come up with some reviewers.
Thanks for all your help with this.
Cheers, Nevil (ISE)
On 3/05/11 2:49 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
Nevil,
We have had some discussions within the afs3-standardization mailing list,
and I have some more history.
http://www.openafs.org/pipermail/afs3-standardization/2008-August/000190.html
is a summation by one of our members and says:
"Discussions were held with members of the IESG during the Spring 2008 IESG
Retreat. The outcome of those discussions was the suggestion that the
OpenAFS
Foundation make use of the RFC Editor's independent submission process as a
forum for publishing future AFS standards."
In a separate note, it is also reported that:
"The discussion was led by Lisa Dusseault who at the time was an
Application
Area Director."
I can not find any notes on the subject from the IETF.
So that is where we are at today.
--- <snip> ---
So we would like to propose, some additional text to be included
in our documents to satisfy point #2; keep the tone of the documents
to be standards, but not IETF standards; and to not form a IETF WG at
this time.
We could come up with a paragraph, or do you have some text to propose?
And I would personally propose something like this as a starting point
to be included in the Status of this Memo section:
"This document was produced by the AFS3-standardization group as extensions
and updates to the existing AFS protocols. The existing AFS protocols are
not IETF standard protocols and these extension to that protocol are
not to be considered IETF standards, but rather work of the
AFS3-Standardization
group."
--
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
