[AFS3-std] Submitting a draft RFC as Experimental

[Douglas E. Engert]

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:
	The desired category (Informational or Experimental) of the RFC.

http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
Says:
    Indicating what intended status the I-D if it is published as
    an RFC is fine; however, this should be done with the words
    "Intended status: <status>" on the left side of the first page.

I am not sure if "desired category" == "Intended status".

 From draft-wilkinison-afs3-standardisation-00 Section 2.3.3  it looks
like we intend to keep documents as "draft", "experimental" or "standard".
We can keep track of our status using the "Intended status: field,
as it appears that independent submissions are  in the eyes of the editor
draft for now.

Derrick,
Can you add the explanation, and the "Intended status: experimental"
and resubmit the draft?

http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html says you send an e-mail
which could include the fact that this committee has reviewed the draft
and is moving it to experimental.

When you submitted it the first time, did you include any reviewers?
If needed we have a couple of IETF WG chairs on this list, they could
be added...

Did I miss anything?

-- 

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