On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 17:05 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > 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.
I realized I forgot to say something on this point. Whether a new code point is required is going to depend on how broken/unimplementable the original spec is and whether anyone has even tried. However, given the size of most of the namespaces involved, I think we should generally err on the side of allocating new numbers, even if the old ones will end up never being implemented. > 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. Well, this is backwards. Submitting a document to RFC-Editor doesn't advance it to standard; rather, a document should be published that way only once it becomes a standard. AFAIK, this one never did, and certainly not before it was sent to the ISE. We do need a revised charter. That was actually supposed to be one of the group's first tasks, but as it turns out, I think we're better off having waited. If there really is renewed interest, perhaps we can get a few documents done and then discuss a charter update. In the meantime, we can always adopt process changes simply by consensus of this group. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
