On 14 Mar 2011, at 21:42, Andrew Deason wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:15:57 -0500 > Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> However, discussing OpenAFS implementation details within the RFC >>>>> series is definitely inappropriate. >> >> I don't agree with this as an unqualified statement. The parts of the >> wire protocol that are OpenAFS-specific are still a wire protocol >> (though not necessarily AFS-3), and my limited understanding of the >> IETF is that pretty much any wire protocol is appropriate/eligible as >> at least some kind of RFC (in this case, Informational). At least, >> from the perspective of the IETF / the RFC series.
I think you are misunderstanding some fundamentals of how the IETF works, and the relationship between the IETF, the RFC series, and the afs3-standardisation group. The AFS-3 standardisation group does not exist within the umbrella of the IETF - in fact, it was felt that it would be very difficult for it to do so. The IETF has a proud history of not rubber stamping existing protocols, are keen not to duplicate the work of existing working groups (in our case, NFSv4), and require the granting of change control that it would have been politically difficult to secure. It would be difficult to get any AFS-3 documents past IETF Last Call, even as informational publications. Instead, the afs3-standardisation group has its own model, which is based loosely upon the IETF's (because those drafting the process had some familiarity with the IETF, and believed that what worked there was worth emulating). Where we converge is in our use of tools, and in particular, in our archival document series. RFCs contain far more than just IETF documents. There has been a long history of the Independent Submission Stream (note that these are distinct from independent submissions to the IETF, which ultimately end up being IETF documents) - a series of documents from independent authors, which don't pass through the IETF process, and receive minimal scrutiny from the IESG. RFC5742 describes the process for publishing within this series. It should be noted that publishing an RFC is not a lightweight process. It requires the work of the RFC Production Centre to proof, sub edit, and generally turn our drafts into publishable documents. It requires the Independent Submissions Editor and their advisory board to review that document for technical content, and to solicit external reviews as required. It requires the IESG to review the document for conflicts with work being done within the IETF. This is a substantial outlay of time and effort. We have yet to establish whether publishing AFS-3 standardisation documents within the Independent Submission Stream is seen as a suitable use of that effort by those administering it. Doing so is one of the outstanding actions on our standardisation group chairs. I firmly believe that doing so for OpenAFS specific documents would be an entirely inappropriate squandering of scarce resources. S. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
