On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, David Zomaya wrote:
I'm not sure the best mechanism to share them, so I've posted my notes and
review here:
https://gist.github.com/dzomaya/876d4f8f14db0c7fc04cfec220ac9a36
Also shared with the ISE editor. I may be missing something process-wise, so
just let me know.
The NUT RFC process: Since there are so few of us, I choose the lightweight
"Informational" process rather than the much heavier "Standards Track" process
which requires a separate mailing list, and lots of formality. I also choose,
in order to keep things simple, to use the regular NUT mailing list rather than
create something new. I propose to continue with this simplicity.
Our "Document Shepherd" has agreed with this. If at some later stage, with much
manufacturer involvement, a formal standards track RFC were needed then it would
be perfectly possible to go through the formal process with the (then) existing
text.
When this mailing list has reached "rough consensus and working code", I submit
the text to the IETF process and the ISE get involved. (Note: rough consensus
means 95% agreement and not 50% as in the ISO/IEC.) In the short term, I will
release a new draft this week in order to satisfy an IETF timeout.
Could you please submit your comments, suggestions, text, recommendations,
ideas, ... to this list. I will pick up comments which I have received
privately and introduce them to the list.
Roger
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
