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

[Tom Keiser]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeffrey Altman
<jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:47:23 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:37:04 -0400
>> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@your-file-system.com> wrote:
>>
>>> draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names was approved by this group.
>>> There is nothing to do but implement it.
>>
>> 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?
>
> If you go back and review the mail thread you will find that the
> objection
> was given to this list months after consensus was already obtained.
> That is the cost of failing to review documents in a timely fashion.
> This group can decided to revise the standard but it would be a new
> document.
>

My understanding is the last action by our chairs was to transition
draft-brashear-pts-extended-names from 'draft' to 'experimental'
status.  As per Section 2.3 of
draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00, we are at liberty to further
modify 'experimental' status documents as their implementation(s)
progress.  When was there a second consensus call to transition this
document from 'experimental' to 'standard'?  Failing such a rough
consensus, how are we barred from further discussing the
specification?

-Tom