[AFS3-std] Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization and Independent Submissions

[Douglas E. Engert]

Nevil,
We have had some discussions within the afs3-standardization mailing list,
and I have some more history.

http://www.openafs.org/pipermail/afs3-standardization/2008-August/000190.html
is a summation by one of our members and says:
  "Discussions were held with members of the IESG during the Spring 2008 IESG
   Retreat. The outcome of those discussions was the suggestion that the OpenAFS
   Foundation make use of the RFC Editor's independent submission process as a
   forum for publishing future AFS standards."

In a separate note, it is also reported that:
  "The discussion was led by Lisa Dusseault who at the time was an Application
  Area Director."

I can not find any notes on the subject from the IETF.

So that is where we are at today.

> On 14/04/11 4:52 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>
>> Hi Douglas:
>>
>> Jeff did stop by during my Office Hours in Prague, that was helpful.
>>
>> After discussing it with my Editorial Board at IETF 80, we feel
>> that:
>>
>> 1. In the long term we will probably explore the notion of having
>> new input streams for non-IETF SDOs who want to publish via
>> the RFC Editor. However, that's not likely to happen in the
>> next year (or two).
>>
>> 2. Independent submissions documenting protocols have been published
>> as Informational, with a clear statement up front that explains
>> that they are not, in any way, IETF standards. Such RFCs have
>> typically had titles like "Vendor X's foo-bar protocol."

We are willing to add some other wording that this is not IETF
Standard, but a product of the afs3-standardzation group. See below.

>>
>> 3. When I read your drafts, they feel like Standards Track drafts.
>> If we go ahead with them as Independent Submissions, they'll need
>> to be revised to make them feel Informational.

But they are in a way standards, in that there are extensions to the
existing but not well documented AFS protocols. So we would like to
keep them looking like standards, but point out that they are not IETF
standards.

As one of our members put it: "it's perfectly appropriate to publish
protocol specifications, with prescriptive language, as informational
documents.  In fact, the IETF itself does this all the time, which it
wishes to publish a spec which will not be an Internet standard."

>>
>> 4. I Asked the Apps Area Directors for their opinion, Alexy Melnikov
>> replied:
>> "I think doing this in Apps is Ok, assuming that the group wants to
>> revise drafts under IETF change control and other rules. But if the
>> group just wants to get things published, then there should be no
>> conflict with existing Apps work. I think it might be worth double
>> checking with the group about whether they want a WG in Apps."
>>

Another member of the groups said:
  "Documentation for the existing protocols does
   not exist. And what I hear from others in these discussions is that to
   be an IETF WG, we need to effectively standardize the existing protocol
   before we can make any movement on new changes."

  "And I believe I can say that at least most of the community feels that
   standardizing all of the existing protocols _before_ we can add one
   field to an RPC, or define one more flag, etc is a deal-breaker. I think
   that aspect of our situation tends to be very non-obvious to others
   until someone makes a point of mentioning it."

Based on the 2008 discussions, we are not at this time we are looking
to form an IETF working group. But at some time in the future this could
be revisited.


>> Overall, it does seem that it could be worth your swapping email with
>> the Apps Area Directors (Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre) about
>> getting a WG going.
>>
>> So, those are your optins - please let me know how you'd like to
>> proceed.

So we would like to propose, some additional text to be included
in our documents to satisfy point #2; keep the tone of the documents
to be standards, but not IETF standards; and to not form a IETF WG at
this time.

We could come up with a paragraph, or do you have some text to propose?

And I would personally propose something like this as a starting point
to be included in the Status of this Memo section:

"This document was produced by the AFS3-standardization group as extensions
  and updates to the existing AFS protocols. The existing AFS protocols are
  not IETF standard protocols and these extension to that protocol are
  not to be considered IETF standards, but rather work of the AFS3-Standardization
  group."


>>
>> Cheers, Nevil (ISE)
>

-- 

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