Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis
Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com> Fri, 10 September 2010 14:32 UTC
Return-Path: <Thomas.Haynes@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801013A6835 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.882
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.523, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ye0l0ERc46mY for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7ED03A67EB for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,346,1280732400"; d="scan'208";a="447572445"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 10 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.27]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id o8AEX45u029097; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.115]) by sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:33:03 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.112]) by rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:33:02 -0400
Received: from toy-lxp.hq.netapp.com ([10.34.17.94]) by RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:33:01 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <1284082714.2764.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:33:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A2B9CF7A-7242-4C1A-9F6B-87815E23ACB7@netapp.com>
References: <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8002664E38@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com> <1284082714.2764.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2010 14:33:01.0802 (UTC) FILETIME=[1283ACA0:01CB50F5]
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:32:40 -0000
On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 18:35 -0400, david.noveck@emc.com wrote: >> David Black (the man behind NFSv4.2 :-) has asked me to summarize the >> situation with regard to I18N in RFC3530 and the current plan about what >> to do about it going forward in handling it in RFC3530bis. >> ---- Discussion on call: >> >> The big issue discussed was whether we should wait for precis to finish >> this up. >> >> David Black came to the conclusion that since precis work was not >> proceeding very fast, we should go ahead based on the current draft plus >> working group comments, with the potential of an additional update >> (RFC3530tris?) when the precis work is finished and can be applied to >> NFSv4. I was a bit more quiet on this point than I should have been - I think we should be trying to avoid a 3530tris unless we can make sure that the delta is pretty small. We will not be winning friends with the ADs with huge changes. If the i18n chapter is the same for 3530, 5661, and whatever comes next, perhaps it should be a separate document. I was okay pulling the ACL and Multi-Server Namespace chapters back from 5661 because in essence we were saying that implementation experience has shown us what we should have originally put down and we know there won't be wholesale changes in these areas again. I.e., fs_locations_info is already in place and will not be backported. But the i18n seems ripe for a lot of churn. >> >> There were arguments about his use of the word "patch" and the probable >> relative proportions of updates in RFC3530bis and its successor but no >> fundamental disagreement on the basic approach. >> >> I will be working on an update to chapter 12 that will go into a new >> draft of rfc3530-bis, targeted at the Beijing deadline. May be able to >> get it out earlier but I hope people will have chance to look at the >> current draft and give me their comments. > > The other point that I heard being made (and for which we appeared to > have consensus) was that in the short term, we should attempt to > document existing practice (as Dave has indeed been doing). IOW: > existing NFS implementations and best practices should be the guideline > for 3530bis while we wait for the IETF High Lords of > Internationalisation to agree on basic procedure... > > Cheers > Trond > > _______________________________________________ > nfsv4 mailing list > nfsv4@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
- [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Trond Myklebust
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Spencer Shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Trond Myklebust
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Robert Thurlow
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black