[AFS3-std] Re: IBM will not re-license OpenAFS .xg files

[Tom Keiser]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:48:17 -0600
> Kim Kimball <dhk@ccre.com> wrote:
>
>> I hear that "we can't" ... "we must"
>>
>> Perhaps we can evaluate this:  "... or are desperately-needed
>> functionality that can't afford to be blocked on standardization. "
>>
>> What is the desperately needed functionality, and for each such item
>> what is the desperate need?
>
> "Desparately needed" is defined extremely differently according to
> different organizations, and can be conflicting. It is difficult for me
> to even begin to answer that question for myself, let alone arrive at
> some agreement between everyone.
>

Agreed.  However, if we utilize expediency as a filter,
draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names (now that we have resolutions
to the .xg IPR question, and concomitant stall at the ISE),
draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk, and draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk-afs seem, at
least to me, excellent candidates for consensus work in the near term.

-Tom