On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
What you are saying directly contradicts the multi-phased process prescribed in Section 2.3 of our bylaws. Jeffrey Hutzelman's email, dated 2/1/2011, to this group lays out the process in cogent detail, so I will not bother to duplicate it here. -Tom _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
