On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:35:09 PM, Tom Keiser wrote: > 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
Further revision means creating a new RPC with the revised semantics. You are always free to discuss whatever you want to discuss. That is true of one day old RPCs as of 20 year old RPCs. The fact remains that as soon as consensus is reached on a document that implementers are clear to deploy code with the published interfaces. If you want to revise the interface, write a new I-D that proposes a new RPC. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
