[AFS3-std] A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev]

Hello,

Reading this draft, I don't actually understand why you chose to publish 
it as RFC.  RFC 2026, Section 2.1 says:

>     RFCs cover a wide range of
>     topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
>     new research concepts to status memos about the Internet.

However, even such definition doesn't match your document.  There is no 
statement of why it should be useful for Internet community; nor may it 
be simply deduced from its contents.  If I'm saying something wrong, 
please feel free to correct me.  However, even though RFCs have a wide 
scope, IMO it's appropriate to publish the draft as an RFC.  You may 
also seek an advice of somebody from the IESG <iesg@ietf.org> (see also 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html) about appropriateness of RFC 
publication vehicle here.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

19.07.2011 21:18, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Don't forget we are in the middle of this call...
>
> On 7/15/2011 1:11 PM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>> We have a request to proceed with a call for consensus on:
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/
>>
>>
>> Our draft procedures say a call should last at least 1 week,
>> and this being Friday afternoon, I would like to extend the
>> period to Monday, 7/25/2011.
>>
>>
>> Consensus as used by the IETF is not a vote but a general agreement
>> by the working group that the draft has addressed all issues.
>> If there is someone who strongly disagrees with some issue the group
>> should make ever effort to understand the issue even if the one making
>> the point is having trouble expressing the issue.
>>
>> Members should read the document and if you have issues please state
>> them and indicate what needs to be changed. If you have no issues, let
>> us know that too.
>>
>> Please respond using the subject from this e-mail.
>>
>