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

[Derrick Brashear]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de> wrote:
> 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
>> =A0 under development; this includes both documents representing
>> =A0 proposals from individual participants and documents the group
>> =A0 is working on (really, the line there is fuzzy at best; we have
>> =A0 no formal "adoption" step and IMHO don't need one).
>>
>> =A0 This has nothing to do with being an internet-draft, which is
>> =A0 about having a particular format and being archived and
>> =A0 distributed in a particular way. =A0It also has nothing to do
>> =A0 with the IETF's "Draft Standard" status, which is a step on
>> =A0 the way to becoming an Internet standard.
>>
>> - When the group has formed a consensus that a document is done and
>> =A0 should eventually become a standard, its status is changed to
>> =A0 "experimental", reflecting the fact that we don't want to call
>> =A0 something finished that in fact has never been implemented or
>> =A0 tested. =A0Again, this has nothing to do with the "Experimental"
>> =A0 status attached to RFC's, which generally denotes a document
>> =A0 that actually describes an experiment, or at least a protocol
>> =A0 that is the subject of experimentation.
>>
>> - Once a protocol has been fully implemented, tested, and we are
>> =A0 satisfied that it is sufficiently mature, its status is changed
>> =A0 to "standard". =A0This, again, is distinct from the IETF's
>> =A0 "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. =A0This 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. =A0The process of publishing an RFC takes a while and is a
>> substantial amount of work for the RFC Production Center. =A0We 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".

which means ....
Intended status:  Informational
?

because right now nothing is listed as Draft...

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

new web pages do (will) not. the current ones have not been
regenerated. that's static content.

the daily snapshot generator script probably still needs to be fixed.


--=20
Derrick