Re: [nfsv4] Status of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update

[spencer shepler <[e-mail]>]

Datatracker updated.  Shepherding to IESG forthcoming within the week.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 2:39 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We need more information about the current status and future of this
> document.  Since WGLC ended, we have not received status updates and the
> datatracker entry appears out-of-date.
>
> Here's a brief summary of what I know:
>
>    - Working Group Last Call for this document started on 7/24 and was
>    scheduled to end on 8/10.
>    - On 8/16 Chuck indicated that no last call comments had been received
>    and inqiuired as to next steps for the document.
>    - On 8/19 you responded to Chuck, indicating that your vacation had
>    caused an unavoidable brief delay and  that you intended to shepherd the
>    document forward.   From this, I (and probably others) assumed that there
>    was no question that working group consensus on the document had been
>    achieved and that further steps to advance consideration of it would happen
>    soon.
>    - On 10/3. Chuck noticed that the document was still listed on the
>    datatracker with a WG state of "I-D Exists".   Apparently, the state was
>    never updated to reflect the start or end of working group last call or the
>    fact that working group consensus had been achieved. Chuck inquired whether
>    there was someting that you needed from him (as editor) or me (as
>    co-author).
>
> It is now two months since the end of last call and we have had no further
> information about the status of the document. The authors need to know
> about the current status and expected next steps for this document.  This
> issue is of particular concern given that the target date for final
> submission for this document is 11/2018 and further delay would make it
> hard to achieve this date.  The authors are conerned about this issue and
> others might be as well.
>
> Some questions that I think need clear answers:
>
>    - How is the lack of a transition to WGLC to be dealt with?  In the
>    past this issue has ben dealt with simply by noting, after the fact, that
>    the last-call took place but I'm not sure why that has not been done.  If
>    that is still OK from a IETF/IESG perspctive it needs to be done, to keep
>    the datatracker listing of wg document status in accord with reality.
>    - Are we right in presuming that, in your judgment, working group
>    consensus has been achieved?   Since the authors have received no indicaton
>    of difficulties, one would normally assume so.  However, the fact that the
>    document is still in "I-D exists" makes things confusing and uncertain.  We
>    need to get a quick clarification about the document status.
>    - Unfortunately, despite your indication that you would shpherd the
>    document forward, according to the data tracker, there is no current
>    shepherd assigned which is apparently in conflict with your statement to
>    Chuck about proceeding to shepherd this document forward.  Again, we need
>    clarification as to the status of this document.  Since the datatracker
>    info is often unreliable, we need to get clarity on this point, to be sure
>    if work on shepherding this document is proceeding and what we can expect
>    in terms of schdule.
>
> Authors and the rest of the working group need a realiable source of
> information about the status of documents once thet are ready for working
> group last call and the data tracker currently is not fulfilliing that
> function. I'd like to make a couple of suggestions to improve the situation
> in the future:
>
>    - The WG status for documents needs to be updated in the data tracker
>    whenever the status changes.   I realize that this kind of update might
>    strike one as excessive and I agree that it can be annoying.  However, as
>    the datatacker is the one available means to commmunicate this information
>    to the working group members (and others), it makes sense to keep it
>    accurate.
>    - Given that we have target dates for many of our active documents,
>    these should be noted on the data tracker.
>    - When there is a substantial delay in proceeding to the next step of
>    document processing (over a week), I suggest that there is a need to
>    properly set expectations with the document authors (and the working group
>    as a whole, if you so choose).
>
> With regard to this specific document, I think it makes sense for you to
> decide on a realistic plan to submit it for IESG consideration and share
> that with the working group.
> ReplyForward
>