[AFS3-std] [RPC Request] 64-bit volume IDs, quotas, and block usages

[David Boyes]

> On 23 Jun 2009, at 02:05, David Boyes wrote:
>=20
> > The RFC template serves many other organizations well and I think we
> > all understand it and understand the level of detail required.
> > Perhaps that might be a good starting place.
>=20
> That's exactly what our standardisation mechanism requires ...

Is there a place where that's written up? An admittedly trivial search didn=
't locate anything that looked immediately likely.

If the mechanism requires a RFC-style document, then I guess I'm missing th=
e point of the previous few days discussion on what is and isn't in a propo=
sal, then. If a number of people are making the point that important pieces=
 are being left out of proposed ideas, then I'd say there needs to be a ste=
p back and agree on what a proposal should be before being sent here.=20

> However, what I think we're interested in at present is expressions of
> intent. As a group we currently have no idea about what changes people
> are considering making.=20

Remember that the RFCs were originally working documents. I don't see the t=
wo (expression of intent and a RFC-style document) as incompatible. Aim, th=
en fire. There are too few people involved in this effort as it is; I think=
 that having some structure to proposals to help them be reasonably baked b=
y the time it reaches public discussion is salubrious.