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

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 14:37 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 1:47 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:48:38 -0400
> > Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > If we take the approach of focusing on 1 document at a time,
> > draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names sounds like a good first one to
> > me. However, is there anything I (or other "reviewers") could possibly
> > do? My "next task" on that for the past year or so has been to wait
> > for... I don't even know 'who' anymore.
> > 
> > (Realistically, "1 doc at a time" doesn't need to actually be _one_ doc,
> > but a small fixed number keeps seeming like a good idea.)
> 
> draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names was approved by this group.
> There is nothing to do but implement it.

Well, and publish it.  It's been waiting on the ISE, who in turn has
been waiting on the people they asked for review.  That's one of the
process issues I mentioned in my earlier message.  If we instead adopt
the model of publishing our own documents, we can withdraw this one from
the RFC-Editor and just publish it.

I believe at least one of the other documents mentioned, and one or two
others that haven't been mentioned, may simply be waiting for last call.
At this point, it's probably best to assume that the chairs have
forgotten about the status of any such things.  Authors of documents
which the group has been working on and which they think are ready for a
last call(*) should let the chairs know.

-- Jeff




(*) There are no formal "first calls" or "second calls" or the like.
Document authors/editors should feel free to solicit comments any time a
new version is posted and/or as many times as necessary to get the
needed feedback.  We'll keep on discussing and working on a document
until it is believed to be done, at which point a Last Call will be
issued to determine whether there really is consensus to approve and
publish the document.  The decision as to when to issue a Last Call is
made by the chairs, with a significant amount of input from the document
authors/editors.  The model I've used and seen used in the IETF, and
which I envisioned when Simon wrote the provisional charter for this
group, is that authors request a Last Call when they believe the
document is ready.  The chairs would then go ahead and issue one unless
there is still active discussion or they have other reasons to believe
the document is not done.