On 5/3/2011 1:04 PM, David Boyes wrote:
Nevil Browmlee has responded to our query about getting
our AFS3 documents published. I have responded with the note below,
but want input from the group:
Is the paragraph below OK?
Who could we get as independent reviewers of the documents?
<grumble> If they're OK with creating a WG to do this in Apps, then why aren't we
doing that rather than inventing another special-case wheel? Seems like a waste of effort
that could be more profitably used elsewhere.</grumble>
It is my understanding that in 2008 the IETF was not interested in having
AFS as a WG, and if it was to be WG, the WG wopuld need to write a full set
of AFS protocol documents before making changes. This would be an
"insurmountable problem" at this time.
I have no problem with the paragraph. I don't know that the phrase "future
publication not guaranteed" is what we want to hear, though. Sounds like they're
making a special case of document #1, but not agreeing to proceed with future docs.
No its not what we want to hear, but getting the first document published
is what we want to hear.
Re: independent reviewers: could we suggest that a min of 2 people not involved
in the creation of the document would be the independent reviewers?
A already have on volenteer, who said:
"I believe that anyone on this list can be a reviewer for the IETF.
You can submit my name and e-mail."
Do we have others?
I would like to send at least 3.
--
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
