[AFS3-std] AFS3 Standardization and Independent Submissions - response from ISE

[Douglas E. Engert]

Here is the response from the ISE on our inquiry
about our process. (Sorry I missed the April 14 note somehow.)

The way I read this is:

We need some words to indicate that these are not
IETF Standards, but informational. (point 3 below.)

We might want to consider having an AFS WG in the IETF
(Point 4 below), but as I understand it, there are complications
with doing this because IBM still owns the name "AFS" and has
some restrictions on any code derived from the IBM/AFS.
(Please correct me if I am wrong on this.)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:42:29 +1200
From: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
To: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
CC: ISE <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>


Hi Douglas:

I emailed you an update back on 14 April, here's a copy ..

Cheers, Nevil

. Nevil,
. I hope that Jeff had a chance to talk to you at the IETF meeting
. and fill you in on what we the AFS3 group is doing. I have not
. heard from him, so am writing to you directly.
.
. We are interested in the outcome of the OEFT meeting
. and if there are any long term implications, and if there
. is anything we can do to address them.

Thanks.


On 14/04/11 4:52 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>
> Hi Douglas:
>
> Jeff did stop by during my Office Hours in Prague, that was helpful.
>
> After discussing it with my Editorial Board at IETF 80, we feel
> that:
>
> 1. In the long term we will probably explore the notion of having
>      new input streams for non-IETF SDOs who want to publish via
>      the RFC Editor.  However, that's not likely to happen in the
>      next year (or two).
>
> 2. Independent submissions documenting protocols have been published
>      as Informational, with a clear statement up front that explains
>      that they are not, in any way, IETF standards.  Such RFCs have
>      typically had titles like "Vendor X's foo-bar protocol."
>
> 3. When I read your drafts, they feel like Standards Track drafts.
>      If we go ahead with them as Independent Submissions, they'll need
>      to be revised to make them feel Informational.
>
> 4. I Asked the Apps Area Directors for their opinion, Alexy Melnikov
>      replied:
>       "I think doing this in Apps is Ok, assuming that the group wants to
>       revise drafts under IETF change control and other rules. But if the
>       group just wants to get things published, then there should be no
>       conflict with existing Apps work. I think it might be worth double
>       checking with the group about whether they want a WG in Apps."
>
> Overall, it does seem that it could be worth your swapping email with
> the Apps Area Directors (Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre) about
> getting a WG going.
>
> So, those are your optins - please let me know how you'd like to
> proceed.
>
> Cheers, Nevil (ISE)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand