On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:05:42 -0400 Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is true that anyone can submit a wire protocol that is going to > become an IETF governed protocol as an information RFC. Simon's point > is that AFS3 protocols are not to be governed by the IETF and > therefore cannot be submitted using the IETF processes. > > The Independent Submission Stream process is what AFS3 or OpenAFS > protocols require. Does the Indepentent Submission Stream not fall under the category of an "IETF process"? I know it's not the normal process of IETF-handled standards with working groups and such, but it's still a process that involves the IETF and the IETF specifies some of the procedures for. > > I could see it not being part of the IETF process if nobody wants to > > do that; just the format is something useful. My concern is that > > sometimes I get the vibe of "oh god standardization is _so slow_", > > so if internal protocol work doesn't require the same timeline and > > review and stuff, people are going to try to rush through it. So it > > doesn't really matter if it's an IETF process specifically, but > > something in that general direction seems helpful. > > The format of an I-D is fine. Derrick's point is that the place for > the document series to live for OpenAFS specific protocols is in the > OpenAFS doc tree. Don't publish them to IETF. Just submit them to > the doc tree via gerrit. ...where they can be reviewed by 1 person and then merged in a few days when no activity occurs? That's not a slight against the current gerrit system, but the perceived norm/average for code changes does not seem appropriate for protocol changes. Some separate process or clear guidelines would prevent any such parity. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
