[AFS3-std] more than a year later...
Douglas E. Engert
deengert@anl.gov
Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:46:27 -0500
On 9/27/2011 9:15 AM, David Boyes wrote:
>> 6 months later...
>
> Now that the handover apparently is complete, could the new chairs comm=
ent on the estimated publication schedule for the documents in queue?
>
As Jeff pointed out he does not take office till 10/1.
There has been no schedule. What has been going on is the attempt to get =
the
first document through the IETF Independent Submission Process.
I believe the ISE is still waiting on two of the three reviewers: Simon a=
nd Jeff A.
See note below.
See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names/
Having a group like ours submitting Independent drafts was and still
is a new idea for the IETF and this groups when round and round
over the last few years trying to get that concept by the IETF.
So in the view of this lame-duck co-chair, it would be best to
get the first draft through the process before proceeding with others.
The new co-chairs will have to decide on any new course of action.
On 8/16/2011 I sent this not to the list:
Our first draft is moving through the IETF Independent Submission Process=
,
and is now waiting for the author.
As far as I know, the two other reviewers have not sent in their reviews.
and it would be good have have all the reviews in before submitting a new=
draft.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization and Independent Submissions
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:15:07 -0700
From: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: Independent Stream
To: Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
CC: ISE <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>, "D=
ouglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>
Hi Derrick:
Henry Hotz has sent me the appended review of your draft, so I've changed
its state to ISR-AUTH. Would you please consider his comments, and publi=
sh
a new revision that addresses them.
I'm still waiting for reviews from Simon Wilkinson and Jeff Altman, I'll
prod them now!
Cheers, Nevil
On 08/01/2011 06:21 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> I've looked at<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-exte=
nded-names-09> and it is generally fine per-se as to content.
>
> What I see as significant problems are historical artifacts of the sta=
ndardization process. This document updates a protocol that does not hav=
e a pre-existing standard description. Consequently,=20
there are a number of things which are referenced, but not defined.
>
> The biggie is the Rx protocol itself. The standard reference for that=
is Ed Zayas' "AFS-3 Programmer=E2=80=99s Reference: Specification for th=
e Rx Remote Procedure Call Facility", Version 1.2 of 28 August=20
1991. I don't know if that should be a normative or informative referenc=
e. I'm inclined to say informative since it isn't a standards document a=
nd wasn't even really binding on Transarc when they=20
put it out.
>
> That document appears to define everything which I had marked as needi=
ng definition when I read the draft.
>
> The following comments are just nits:
>
> An informative reference to "AFS-3 Programmer=E2=80=99s Reference: Arc=
hitectural Overview" might also be useful, but not necessary. (It's refe=
renced by the Rx doc anyway.)
>
> Section 6 makes no mention of how an entity is authenticated. Not sur=
e it needs to, but I felt funny about it.
>
> The sentence "It is expected. . ." near the top of page 6 seems unclea=
r to me. More generally the language concerning how names are to be comp=
ared stays strictly to what the GSSAPI standards say.=20
Speaking from experience people violate the "MUST NOT" because they nee=
d to deal with case-folding caused by Microsoft Active Directory. I wish=
I had some standards-confoming procedure which also=20
worked with AD without deployment conventions or other presumptions, but =
I don't. Absent such a thing I can't suggest (or even ask for) changes, =
but I could wish for some language that better=20
reflected practical necessity.
>
> The PrCapabilities line near the top of page 7 should be indented one =
more level.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Henry:
>>
>> It's been about three weeks since you volunteered to review
>> the draft: draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names
>>
>> Can you estimate when you'll be able to send me the review,
>> please?
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>>
>> On 9/05/11 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>> Nevil:
>>>
>>> Both Simon and I will do so.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey Altman
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2011 6:45 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Douglas:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you've defined 'independent reviewer' correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Two reviews would be enough, that would be Henry (not involved
>>>> in AFS3 efforts) and one other - Simon and Jeff, could you please
>>>> decide which of you will do it? (Of course, if you'd both like to,
>>>> that would be fine too).
>>>>
>>>> Here's the note I usually send to prospective reviewers:
>>>>
>>>> "would you be prepared to do a more detailed review, with two
>>>> parts:
>>>> a) Comments for the Authors
>>>> Reasons for rejection or suggestions for improvements.
>>>> These will be returned to authors (or you may wish to hav=
e
>>>> email discussions directly with authors). Could they als=
o
>>>> be published on the Independent Submissions web site,
>>>> either as public reviews or as anonymous reviews?
>>>> b) Comments for the Independent Submissions Editor
>>>> These are advice to the ISE, and will not be published."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>> --
>> Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
> not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
> Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>
>
>
--=20
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
--=20
Douglas E. Engert <DEEngert@anl.gov>
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
(630) 252-5444