[OpenAFS-devel] Re: OpenAFS internal protocol standardization

[Andrew Deason]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:05:42 -0400
Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> wrote:

> 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.

Does the Indepentent Submission Stream not fall under the category of an
"IETF process"? I know it's not the normal process of IETF-handled
standards with working groups and such, but it's still a process that
involves the IETF and the IETF specifies some of the procedures for.

> > 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.

...where they can be reviewed by 1 person and then merged in a few days
when no activity occurs? That's not a slight against the current gerrit
system, but the perceived norm/average for code changes does not seem
appropriate for protocol changes. Some separate process or clear
guidelines would prevent any such parity.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net