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

[Simon Wilkinson]

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:47, Andrew Deason wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:37:04 -0400
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@your-file-system.com> wrote:
>=20
>> draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names was approved by this group.
>> There is nothing to do but implement it.
>=20
> That has been very unclear. This standard only seems to exist as an
> expired IETF I-D, and as far as I'm aware, there was still an
> outstanding rather important objection to RemoveAuthName as it exists =
in
> the IETF archive. That's how we're leaving it?

The document ( draft-brashear-pts-extended-names-09 ) passed last call =
in this group, and was (and probably still is) in the Independent =
Submissions Editor queue. What stalled it there was a review request =
that more context be provided - that before publishing an RFC extending =
AFS-3, we should document better what AFS-3 actually is. This then =
opened up the whole can of worms of what we could and couldn't do based =
on the existing XG files and IBM documentation. But as far as this group =
was concerned, that document was done, and the registrars assigned code =
points to the RPCs as documented.

We can't keep going "oh, and another thing". That's one of the main =
reasons nothing gets done round here.

S.