[OpenAFS-devel] Re: rx throttle counts in rx-debug-peers

[Simon Wilkinson]

On 14 Mar 2011, at 21:42, Andrew Deason wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:15:57 -0500
> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>=20
>>>>> However, discussing OpenAFS implementation details within the RFC
>>>>> series is definitely inappropriate.
>>=20
>> I don't agree with this as an unqualified statement. The parts of the
>> wire protocol that are OpenAFS-specific are still a wire protocol
>> (though not necessarily AFS-3), and my limited understanding of the
>> IETF is that pretty much any wire protocol is appropriate/eligible as
>> at least some kind of RFC (in this case, Informational). At least,
>> from the perspective of the IETF / the RFC series.

I think you are misunderstanding some fundamentals of how the IETF =
works, and the relationship between the IETF, the RFC series, and the =
afs3-standardisation group. The AFS-3 standardisation group does not =
exist within the umbrella of the IETF - in fact, it was felt that it =
would be very difficult for it to do so. The IETF has a proud history of =
not rubber stamping existing protocols, are keen not to duplicate the =
work of existing working groups (in our case, NFSv4), and require the =
granting of change control that it would have been politically difficult =
to secure. It would be difficult to get any AFS-3 documents past IETF =
Last Call, even as informational publications.

Instead, the afs3-standardisation group has its own model, which is =
based loosely upon the IETF's (because those drafting the process had =
some familiarity with the IETF, and believed that what worked there was =
worth emulating). Where we converge is in our use of tools, and in =
particular, in our archival document series. RFCs contain far more than =
just IETF documents. There has been a long history of the Independent =
Submission Stream (note that these are distinct from independent =
submissions to the IETF, which ultimately end up being IETF documents) - =
a series of documents from independent authors, which don't pass through =
the IETF process, and receive minimal scrutiny from the IESG. RFC5742 =
describes the process for publishing within this series.

It should be noted that publishing an RFC is not a lightweight process. =
It requires the work of the RFC Production Centre to proof, sub edit, =
and generally turn our drafts into publishable documents. It requires =
the Independent Submissions Editor and their advisory board to review =
that document for technical content, and to solicit external reviews as =
required. It requires the IESG to review the document for conflicts with =
work being done within the IETF. This is a substantial outlay of time =
and effort.

We have yet to establish whether publishing AFS-3 standardisation =
documents within the Independent Submission Stream is seen as a suitable =
use of that effort by those administering it. Doing so is one of the =
outstanding actions on our standardisation group chairs. I firmly =
believe that doing so for OpenAFS specific documents would be an =
entirely inappropriate squandering of scarce resources.

S.