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

[Tom Keiser]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Jeffrey Altman
<jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> wrote:
> 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
> new RPC.
>

What you are saying directly contradicts the multi-phased process
prescribed in Section 2.3 of our bylaws.  Jeffrey Hutzelman's email,
dated 2/1/2011, to this group lays out the process in cogent detail,
so I will not bother to duplicate it here.

-Tom