[AFS3-std] Re: Submitting a draft RFC as Experimental

[Hartmut Reuter]

Andrew Deason wrote:
> What is draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names currently waiting on? It
> does not seem clear who is supposed to be doing what at this point. We
> achieved consensus on the actual content awhile ago, right?
>

As Jeffrey Hutzelman stated in his mail to the list from Feb 1:
 > The way I read Simon's document, we have three states:
 >
 > - Documents start out in "draft" state, which means they are still
 >   under development; this includes both documents representing
 >   proposals from individual participants and documents the group
 >   is working on (really, the line there is fuzzy at best; we have
 >   no formal "adoption" step and IMHO don't need one).
 >
 >   This has nothing to do with being an internet-draft, which is
 >   about having a particular format and being archived and
 >   distributed in a particular way.  It also has nothing to do
 >   with the IETF's "Draft Standard" status, which is a step on
 >   the way to becoming an Internet standard.
 >
 > - When the group has formed a consensus that a document is done and
 >   should eventually become a standard, its status is changed to
 >   "experimental", reflecting the fact that we don't want to call
 >   something finished that in fact has never been implemented or
 >   tested.  Again, this has nothing to do with the "Experimental"
 >   status attached to RFC's, which generally denotes a document
 >   that actually describes an experiment, or at least a protocol
 >   that is the subject of experimentation.
 >
 > - Once a protocol has been fully implemented, tested, and we are
 >   satisfied that it is sufficiently mature, its status is changed
 >   to "standard".  This, again, is distinct from the IETF's
 >   "Standard" -- we don't get to define Internet standards.
 >
 >
 > Again according to Simon's document, standard" documents are submitted
 > as RFC's (with status "Informational"); "draft" and "experimental"
 > documents are distributed as internet-drafts.  This is because an
 > "experimental" document is by definition not mature, and may be expected
 > to change as a result of problems found during implementation and
 > testing.  The process of publishing an RFC takes a while and is a
 > substantial amount of work for the RFC Production Center.  We want to
 > limit the amount of load we create.

I think it should be submitted again with status "Informational" as 
"experimental" rather than as "draft".

We also should have a page on the openafs website which contains all the 
documents the afs3-standardization has agreed to so that they can easily be 
found by any developer.and cannot disappear after their expiration date.

BTW, I think the links to "Browse Source" still shows the old CVS contents and 
not the source in git. I suspect the same for the "Daily Snapshots".

Hartmut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------