[AFS3-std] Submitting a draft RFC as Experimental

[Derrick Brashear]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 02:27:27 PM -0600 "Douglas E. Engert"
> <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/2011 11:54 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/12/2011 12:39 PM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The way I am reading draft-wilkinison-afs3-standardisation-00 Section
>>>> 2.3.3, the pts draft should be moved to experimental, which would
>>>> require the author to add the explanation and submit it to the RFC
>>>> editors as experimental.
>>
>>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html
>> Says:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The desired category (Informational or Experimental) of t=
he RFC.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
>> Says:
>> =A0 =A0Indicating what intended status the I-D if it is published as
>> =A0 =A0an RFC is fine; however, this should be done with the words
>> =A0 =A0"Intended status: <status>" on the left side of the first page.
>>
>> I am not sure if "desired category" =3D=3D "Intended status".
>
> It is. =A0In the IETF, that field is used to describe the status the docu=
ment
> is expected to eventually have, once it is published as an RFC. =A0It app=
ears
> only in Internet-Drafts, not in published RFC's.
>
>
>> =A0From draft-wilkinison-afs3-standardisation-00 Section 2.3.3 =A0it loo=
ks
>> like we intend to keep documents as "draft", "experimental" or "standard=
".
>
> Yes, but those are our designations. =A0If you publish an internet-draft =
with
> "Intended status: Standard", people will think you intend for it to becom=
e
> an Internet Standard, which is not what we want them to think. =A0It migh=
t be
> reasonable to say "Intended status: AFS3 Standard" or something like that=
,
> if you want to distinguish documents that are expected to work through th=
e
> process from those that are expected to go away.
>
>
>> When you submitted it the first time, did you include any reviewers?
>
> I don't believe this document has ever been submitted to the RFC-Editor. =
=A0I
> don't think it should be until we actually consider it a "standard". =A0I=
IRC,
> part of the goal was to minimize the burden we place on the RFC-Editor.

I assume we do now consider it ratified, and thus it should be
submitted. Should I do
so now, and what should the status be? Currently the document (with
the ratified text
explaining implicit and explicit added) is marked to be draft-08, but
I don't know what the
next step should be.


--=20
Derrick