On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:48:38 -0400 Tom Keiser <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed. However, if we utilize expediency as a filter, > draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names (now that we have resolutions > to the .xg IPR question, and concomitant stall at the ISE), > draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk, and draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk-afs seem, at > least to me, excellent candidates for consensus work in the near term. If we take the approach of focusing on 1 document at a time, draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names sounds like a good first one to me. However, is there anything I (or other "reviewers") could possibly do? My "next task" on that for the past year or so has been to wait for... I don't even know 'who' anymore. (Realistically, "1 doc at a time" doesn't need to actually be _one_ doc, but a small fixed number keeps seeming like a good idea.) -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
