On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:05:42 -0400 > Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> 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.
we can't force review. we *should* for drafts set up a special queue and establish 1) a minimum timeline 2) a list which gets notified when a submission is make if there's one positive comment, of one, well, technically that is a consensus. a crappy one, but... -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
