On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:47:23 PM, Andrew Deason wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:37:04 -0400 >> Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names was approved by this group. >>> There is nothing to do but implement it. >> >> That has been very unclear. This standard only seems to exist as an >> expired IETF I-D, and as far as I'm aware, there was still an >> outstanding rather important objection to RemoveAuthName as it exists in >> the IETF archive. That's how we're leaving it? > > If you go back and review the mail thread you will find that the > objection > was given to this list months after consensus was already obtained. > That is the cost of failing to review documents in a timely fashion. > This group can decided to revise the standard but it would be a new > document. >
My understanding is the last action by our chairs was to transition draft-brashear-pts-extended-names from 'draft' to 'experimental' status. As per Section 2.3 of draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00, we are at liberty to further modify 'experimental' status documents as their implementation(s) progress. When was there a second consensus call to transition this document from 'experimental' to 'standard'? Failing such a rough consensus, how are we barred from further discussing the specification? -Tom _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
