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

[Douglas E. Engert]

Nevil Browmlee has responded to our query about getting
our AFS3 documents published. I have responded with the note below,
but want input from the group:

  Is the paragraph below OK?

  Who could we get as independent reviewers of the documents?




On 5/3/2011 10:12 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>
>
> On 5/2/2011 9:21 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>
>> Hi Douglas:
>>
>> I have checked with the Apps and Transport ADs, the response is
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> You've said that you just want to get the drafts published so as
>> to make them available, and proposed a paragraph for the 'Status of
>> this Memo.' Given all that discussion, I'll go ahead with publishing
>> your first draft, i.e. draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-09.
>
> Great.
>
>>
>> Your paragraph was
>> "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 extensions
>> to that protocol are not to be considered IETF standards, they
>> simply record the work of the AFS3-Standardization group."
>> Note: I've edited this slightly, is that OK with you?
>>
>
> It looks OK to me, I would like comments from our group.
>
>> Also, Independent Submissions get a final review by IESG (RFC 5742),
>> anything you can do to minimise confusion with an 'IETF standard' is
>> worthwhile.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> Concerning the comment above about "IETF change control and other
>> rules," remember that once published, RFCs never change, you'd have to
>> publish new ones. Also, assuming that we get the first document
>> safely published, there's no guarantee that any later ones would be.
>> In particular, you should not assume that a group of inter-related
>> drafts would be published simultaneously.
>
> I don't think that will be a problem.
>
>>
>> Sorry to sound so careful, but we're breaking new ground here!
>>
>> So now, if you're happy to go ahead, accepting the cavets above,
>> my next step is to find some independent reviewers for the draft above.
>> Can you suggest a few people (and their email addresses) that I could
>> ask, please?
>
> I personally think it is OK, I would like to get consensus
> from our group. Most of the people involved with AFS are
> part of the group. But I think we can come up with some reviewers.
>
> Thanks for all your help with this.
>
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil (ISE)
>>
>>
>> On 3/05/11 2:49 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> --- <snip> ---
>>>
>>> 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."
>>
>

-- 

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