[AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-07

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:39:53 AM -0600 "Douglas E. Engert" 
<deengert@anl.gov> 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.

No, I don't think so.  My understanding is that in our process, 
"experimental" is the state a document sits in while we implement it and 
make sure it works, before proceeding to "standard".  These do not 
correspond to the IETF's "Experimental" or standards-track states, and an 
afs3-stds "experimental" document is published in the I-D repository, not 
as an RFC (see the third paragraph).

Once we consider a document "standard", it can be submitted to the 
RFC-Editor as an independent-stream Informational document (because really, 
Experimental and Informational are the only states we can have).

As a group, we really ought to nail this stuff down and publish a charter, 
but working a couple of documents through the process first seems like a 
good idea.


> Section 2.3.3 also says: "it needs to be confirmed that the RFC Editor
> is happy with this."

Yeah; someone is going to need to have a conversation with the RSE and ISE 
about our wanting to use the RFC Series as the publication of record for 
our standards.

-- Jeff