[nfsv4] migration-issues-14

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

This mail follows up on the recent submission of
*draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues-14*.  Although the main motivation for
this submission was to keep the document from expiring, the new draft does
have some significant additions that I'd like to call people's attention to:

   - I've aded a new section entitled *Further Work Needed*, which
   discusses. among other things, the issues around following up with
   appropriate standards-track documents.  At the time -13 was written and at
   IETF99, this was left uncertain.  The new section considers a number of
   alternatives and concludes that the appropriate path forward is to develop
   documents based on *draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update* and
   *draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update*.
   - There is a new *Security Considerations *section, which is compatible
   with the (more detailed) corresponding sections of
   *draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00* and
   *draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update-01*.

With regard to -14, I'd like people to *R*eview *T*hat *F*ine *D*ocument
:-) and let me know about anything  you think is wrong, missing, or not as
clear as it should be.  Note that the working group has a milestone to get
to WGLC for this document by 6/2018, although we might be able to get this
done earlier.

As part of that revew, I'd like people to be thinking about the plan for
these documents going forward.  If you have issues to address or
alternatives to propose, pleae bring them to the group's attention.  We
will have to address this issue when it is proposed to convert the personal
drafts to working group items, but it would be better to get clarity on
this earlier

At IETF 101, I hope we'll have rhe opportnity to review progess on all of
the documents in this group and consider the question of the  eventual
disposition of *d**raft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues*.  For me, the relevant
issue with regard to this question is whether we will want to devote time
to making this into an RFC when this might well result in a documemt nobody
will ever read.   We are pretty sure implementers will read the
standards-track documents for v4.0 and v4.1 but like to hear from the
working group about  whether people think there might be people reading an
RFC based on *d**raft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues* once the standards-track
documents are available.