Re: [nfsv4] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with COMMENT)

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Wed, 19 February 2020 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599A5120816; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:31:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Af8JpvNasl8; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:31:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com [141.146.126.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A8A8120837; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:31:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01JLVR6r101376; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:31:39 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=a6RA+V43lc68N6EPCUoNT7Yb5gEehVaEqY+DYH4Qx5I=; b=pGF+P94qSVVJ94zF2Fe/ZoaMEZ7NI6LRNPHRzddG8/MtfTZu9trJVSEbqsj5l0za8s+W nVNvZvpwotNFKbA1dRAQ5bEnWpIRKJMeNxtLMQcuUhr5rwktdNm+pm8tV1PIyN6EjKWk fY25y/gqmlRDy2LlthgfqRQ5+XU0STIIQW5nwA6B21FPAgenAFOpBq48YVPK+V715lg+ Y5/fiB+v3CZv3djOo5Au8J1flZWjdfk/Ie7hM/W1GruU3a630586BIpV3mKaVQtwm/Lm /NKODUvGrJANWurznabt0WXmp0+s0vkjtDzAv0WFMGhQFLk7juLJITfQ5wYL6gWHHE8K GA==
Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y8udkdyrd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:31:39 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01JLRvsx068018; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:31:38 GMT
Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y8ud7txby-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:31:38 +0000
Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 01JLVb9U031415; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:31:37 GMT
Received: from anon-dhcp-153.1015granger.net (/68.61.232.219) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:31:37 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <158214573880.17612.15325708413733434893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:31:36 -0500
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4919B57D-E1C9-4E9D-B794-40532D13C63E@oracle.com>
References: <158214573880.17612.15325708413733434893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9536 signatures=668685
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002190159
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9536 signatures=668685
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002190159
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/-XaD_lnP31vxof520airgEC6v-g>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:31:44 -0000

Hi Alissa -

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm not sure how strict we usually are about this, but the guidance in Section
> 7.1 makes it sound like the proper registration policy is actually
> Specification Required, not Expert Review.

Section RFC 8126 Section 4.6 says

   This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional
   requirement of a formal public specification.

And I see that the current document does request a formal public
specification for each new entry in the registry. "Specification
Required" would be consistent with the discussion in the current
document.

In spirit this does not seem like a change in a consensus decision,
but merely an editorial correction. May I simply update the text
in my document to read:

   IANA is to assign subsequent new entries in this registry using
   the Specification Required policy as defined in Section 4.6 of
   [RFC8126].


--
Chuck Lever