On 8/30/2012 4:49 PM, Tom Keiser wrote: > 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.
The text you are referring to was intended to prevent unnecessary work by the RFC Editor. Only documents that have been deemed to be "AFS3 Standards" should be sent to the RFC Editor for publication as an Independent Submission RFC. Once a document has reached consensus the document is final and declared to be an "AFS3 Experimental Standard". At this point any RPC signatures and code point assignments are frozen because implementers are now permitted to write code and deploy it. To revise an AFS Experimental Standard a new Internet Draft series is started. When that document reaches consensus it too can be declared an "AFS3 Experimental Standard". However, once a document is forwarded to the RFC Editor as this document was, it is supposed to be an "AFS3 Standard". If this is not clear, then the bylaws for this group will need to be changed. Of course, they need to be changed in any case. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
