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

[Jeffrey Altman]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig1E3E747E0D4716A6AD5F27AA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:35:09 PM, Tom Keiser wrote:
> 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

Further revision means creating a new RPC with the revised semantics.
You are always free to discuss whatever you want to discuss.  That is
true of one day old RPCs as of 20 year old RPCs.

The fact remains that as soon as consensus is reached on a document that
implementers are clear to deploy code with the published interfaces.

If you want to revise the interface, write a new I-D that proposes a=20
new RPC.

Jeffrey Altman




--------------enig1E3E747E0D4716A6AD5F27AA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQP9ARAAoJENxm1CNJffh4Q0oIAIhgko1bFnVzJb/xbg7lgn8y
MNz3QwGHfIkeLDE4CN/JnkAGxPDV/Vp68PNi+QPQcFhlSPLANC/2zLoDT8jJ1Zog
L2OEt5M9vSW2brY2+wM03p7au968r1bEuumFXgslJGeUNq1VVW93pXkTu9H54GQG
FgUYbh7EXeZVjYtav8nmtZz8wCLic3q1HOqlxIp3+vyPtHonAwrkzBwljR8b7Lrg
xGrkYDi3fmrPoEVbBpy+rwRCeWZvKkY+kqMV+/evNYIT/RzYkZkV2UPnq3sbkSMP
tKvbL7oxEkEJCGNEtNKwD9EHTVfc/scb8E3WN1LR0A4YGHjxHqCY0tX++LHF6YI=
=SOOd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig1E3E747E0D4716A6AD5F27AA--