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

[Andrew Deason]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:03:27 +0000
Simon Wilkinson <sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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.

No, I don't think so (I kind of wish people wouldn't spend time on
trying to explain things to me I already know, but alas). I know
afs3-stds is not part of the IETF, since we had that discussion 2 or 3
(or more?) years ago, and it's why not everything needs to be fully
specified like "real" standards. But I don't see how that would change
anything either way.  "Anyone" can submit a wire protocol that's being
used for something as an i-d that ends up becoming an informational rfc
(or experimental or even historical depending on what it is/was). We
have wire protocols, thus they can be submitted.

> 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.

Are they aware of that? I feel like every single time I hear this
brought up, I hear "someone needs to go do this" without specifying who
"someone" is.

> I firmly believe that doing so for OpenAFS specific documents would be
> an entirely inappropriate squandering of scarce resources.

I could see it not being part of the IETF process if nobody wants to do
that; just the format is something useful. My concern is that sometimes
I get the vibe of "oh god standardization is _so slow_", so if internal
protocol work doesn't require the same timeline and review and stuff,
people are going to try to rush through it. So it doesn't really matter
if it's an IETF process specifically, but something in that general
direction seems helpful.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net