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

[Douglas E. Engert]

On 4/21/2011 10:21 AM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> 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?

Personally, I think that that might be all that is needed, but see 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.)
>
> 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>

Yes this is part of the discussion I was looking for.

As Nevil may not be aware of some of these discussions, or the internal issues
with AFS, he proposed:

  "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.".

But it sounds like in 2008 this was done, Jeff Altman says:
  "The IETF is not interested in another file system to standardize."
and:
  "Discussions were held with members of the IESG during the Spring 2008
   IESG Retreat. The outcome of those discussions was the suggestion that the
   OpenAFS Foundation make use of the RFC Editor's independent submission process
   as a forum for publishing future AFS standards."

Were there any notes published on this discussion?
I would like to point at these to send to to the ISE if there exist.
If not who was present at this discussion?

So I would like to propose:

  (1) We come up with a paragraph to be added to all our documents that would
      satisfy the ISE that these are not IETF standards, but are standards in their
      own right.

  (2) We send to the ISE the links to the above e-mail and any other
      information on past IESG discussions.

>
> 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.

Me too.

>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444