[AFS3-std] Submitting a draft RFC as Experimental

[Hartmut Reuter]

To be practical I would say for the moment the important message is that we had 
a community consensus about accepting draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-07 
so that someone can start to work on this base.

Of course, it would be nice to get our accepted standardizations published one 
day, but Derrick's draft will stay on the IETF page until June 2 (when it 
expires). So there is still much time to find a solution for the final place 
where to store those things!

Hartmut

Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Jeff Hutzelman,
> I missed your mail from Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:45:49 -0500
> where you said:
>
>  > 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.
>
> I would suggest that someone who is very active in the IETF and
> understands the processes better then I would be preferred.
> Any volunteers?
>
>
> On 1/12/2011 2:27 PM, Douglas E. Engert 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:
>> 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?
>>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartmut Reuter                  e-mail 		reuter@rzg.mpg.de
			   	phone 		 +49-89-3299-1328
			   	fax   		 +49-89-3299-1301
RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching)   	web    http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~hwr
Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the
Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------