Hello,
Reading this draft, I don't actually understand why you chose to publish
it as RFC. RFC 2026, Section 2.1 says:
RFCs cover a wide range of
topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
new research concepts to status memos about the Internet.
However, even such definition doesn't match your document. There is no
statement of why it should be useful for Internet community; nor may it
be simply deduced from its contents. If I'm saying something wrong,
please feel free to correct me. However, even though RFCs have a wide
scope, IMO it's appropriate to publish the draft as an RFC. You may
also seek an advice of somebody from the IESG <[email protected]> (see also
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html) about appropriateness of RFC
publication vehicle here.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
19.07.2011 21:18, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
Don't forget we are in the middle of this call...
On 7/15/2011 1:11 PM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
We have a request to proceed with a call for consensus on:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/
Our draft procedures say a call should last at least 1 week,
and this being Friday afternoon, I would like to extend the
period to Monday, 7/25/2011.
Consensus as used by the IETF is not a vote but a general agreement
by the working group that the draft has addressed all issues.
If there is someone who strongly disagrees with some issue the group
should make ever effort to understand the issue even if the one making
the point is having trouble expressing the issue.
Members should read the document and if you have issues please state
them and indicate what needs to be changed. If you have no issues, let
us know that too.
Please respond using the subject from this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
