Re: [nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?

spencer shepler <> Mon, 05 December 2016 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C27F12954F for <>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:27:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gszXPtVvZDU for <>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC86F129555 for <>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a124so607357926ioe.2 for <>; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:27:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/egZx13FcH0xR1uGITi7cSAxC/xBAAic3KRBkM35dEI=; b=jnZ44luX2Bd9kF8xRc0FaaGKUgtkOltOnZiZl5884mJ816byDrvrrNPgUgowa4rmSL gjsYUQuAWhi66WeOJ+2Cod+miNmVnIXrpw0VgEnvZ2kkWDzplSxXXJ8qYZWSV/jrcRxA fRdJwgAeiYiNhVP3cSkI73HRCgY3rWaY/ys8wiiRf79QcZfSIQqi664WeLqQjbQMZtt9 Y1NCvkwNvhnEVBVNu0V5IZ8nX/+GglZkx2319dRGCnfn8IPZhe6aE0t7dXElLRVoJpDn HRkNDB1NGXSQzkoLkbn8EUx8Pyc+ktERZcVJF6Qens6+1luQ1z+IJHRSaRrZT+6X36Yb aNAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/egZx13FcH0xR1uGITi7cSAxC/xBAAic3KRBkM35dEI=; b=IyphF3cinD01XrsH8PkClDkFjCcEfphNpEb6z3ouk2AsbmM1+pUJs43014gOIum4Y5 HULrguRMuytczLXBKzUOBdv68YnemEi2AxNuhfndI1RzUS9hqiBYeJ/hO5TrLrmbHmsI xTfMx+lCJw1rHI7xMM8X3rOpH1S0tvN/OVliW48/f55tDouFq/O3B8JHR7U7gD9m2yij ZwKSDv6VYmM7rCCg9mRoYEeig0qonURVs8yBG06Ljbg5GL9G10oqJckAB+fF9tSO0Msd 725zYz0hIFDzsvv2YUdTfR/z4V+ADGacgib5dC5TwrYAb7IOk2sGU86LawM8ICM+LJju BTWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03HUDObgWV70SLcSCKAl8kyhIShxeCFuLk7moWQYkdC8kNBHCckTkkURl6N+f2dbsUqDIgNHfAS4J5/0A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v21mr9458707ite.75.1480958826022; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:27:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:27:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: spencer shepler <>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:27:05 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: David Noveck <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045d9ab4c08f590542ec985a"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:27:09 -0000

Thanks for the reminder about updating the datatracker, David.  I have done
that and when consensus has been determined for the documents, I will move
them to "WG Consensus: waiting for writeup".

And on that topic, it is the responsibility of the WG co-chairs to
determine consensus at the end of the last call period.  I appreciate your
document summary and timeline for updating the document but it is my
responsibility to notify of consensus or not on the documents.

What I need from the other authors is if they plan on updates at this point
and when those will be completed.


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:03 AM, David Noveck <> wrote:

> Working Group Last Call for the following documents, which started on
> 11/10, ended on 12/2:
>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning (initiated on -07)
>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs (initiated on -03)
>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask (initiated on -02)
> As the purpose of WGLC is to elicit comments, it is natural  that those
> comments prompt a set of changes before producing a document that is ready
> to go forward to the IESG with.  I don't think there is any official state
> for the period between the end of WGLC, and the production of a documernt
> that incorporates WG feedback.  I think our practice has been to simply
> leave the document in the WGLC State until it is ready to go forward.
> In this particular case, the situation is complicated by the fact that the
> transition to WGLC was not recorded on 11/10, as it should have been.
> Unless there is a way to do this retroactively (unlikely), the Datatracker
> history is going to be misleading.  Although one would like this history to
> be accurate, people will just have to be aware that this kind of
> discrepancy exists.  This will probably only turn out to be a real problem
> for potential future PhD candidates whose thesis topic involves the
> history of file access protocols.
> In any case, I believe that, as far as my document is concerened,
> versioning-08 is what we should be going forward with.  I've already sent
> out an email detailing how recent comments were addressed.  In order to
> give people time to state any objections or remaining issues, I will wait
> until 12/9 before requesting that we go forward with this document.  I
> assume that other document authors will post their response to comments
> (and submit a new version if necessary) within the next few weeks and we
> will consider the period of time up until that point as effectively part of
> WGLC, even though new WGLC comments would not be appropriate after 12/2.
> As discussed at IETF96, there is a general feeling that the IESG would do
> well to consider these documents together.  However, I don't think they
> need to be tightly synchronized.  Once we have a set of documents ready to
> go forward, we can discuss arrangements to have them considered by the
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list