[OpenAFS-devel] Re: OpenAFS internal protocol standardization

[Jeffrey Altman]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA5E8C56D2A88A3E1EA38FEC9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 3/15/2011 11:27 AM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:03:27 +0000
> Simon Wilkinson <sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.

It is true that anyone can submit a wire protocol that is going to
become an IETF governed protocol as an information RFC.  Simon's point
is that AFS3 protocols are not to be governed by the IETF and therefore
cannot be submitted using the IETF processes.

The Independent Submission Stream process is what AFS3 or OpenAFS
protocols require.

>> 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.
>=20
> 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.

We have said who the someone is repeatedly.  Simon even said so in the
text you quoted.  The someone is either one or both of the AFS-3
Standardization Chairs.

>> I firmly believe that doing so for OpenAFS specific documents would be=

>> an entirely inappropriate squandering of scarce resources.
>=20
> 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.

The format of an I-D is fine.  Derrick's point is that the place for the
document series to live for OpenAFS specific protocols is in the OpenAFS
doc tree.  Don't publish them to IETF.  Just submit them to the doc tree
via gerrit.

Jeffrey Altman



--------------enigA5E8C56D2A88A3E1EA38FEC9
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)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNf45YAAoJENxm1CNJffh4sp8H/0Rch0Pn7fB2UiBfhjTdjR4G
V191JFA6ItXsZvviS5jHaTI5zfJ6uakKnWoqXlX/5q0L5AxGF6caVfqz0LAI576G
slHKZCpRHKfFZUPTHCAJaDtcew4It6B+JWUw2HUPO+nfhAm6OqFlo/n6g5aFXy6E
46nph8oit4M7biRE8ajL1PLu6niqycF400B5942d768L2IKtRl3SxCypoB+TuAIn
mPeMMCV4sBFhEez+5oGWlUM3VtqLsYyeGuP7KtYnKJMj/LhhI62xGQkZthS81Mbu
JP3eiseroOy/ae1hdD1E27pBDtC/Ot6b8eFTE8phYn5jens+m3djiFTaLtDqfec=
=LNbN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigA5E8C56D2A88A3E1EA38FEC9--