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

[Andrew Deason]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:05:39 -0500
"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:

> 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.)

They don't "feel" Informational, apparently. Is the lack of an explicit
note saying that they are not IETF standards-track documents all that
this refers to?

> 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.)

An AFS IETF WG was discussed before, and as far as I have ever known,
the results of all such discussions were "we don't want to do that", one
of the reasons being that some IESG members told us it wasn't a good
idea. There as a huge thread in 2008 about this, among other things,
most of which I don't really remember. But I _think_ this post
encompasses the reasons for not doing it:

<http://www.openafs.org/pipermail/afs3-standardization/2008-August/000190.html>

If there are different/more reasons, I would really appreciate a
summary. Every time this question comes up I have a hard time
remembering why we aren't forming an IETF WG. I usually end up finding
that thread again and reading most of it to remember why.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net