Re: [nfsv4] Working Group last call for NFSv4.1 - ending September 23rd

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 09:37 -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> > What you arrived at being important is that you review those
> erratas related to 
> > document updating the old RFC, which is what you appear to have
> concluded.
> 
> So far, we have only considered the issue of the verified errata on
> Spencer's list
> but my impresion is that you also want of a review of:
> > - the 14 errata in state Reported (i.e. not really looked-at yet).
> > - the 7 errata in state Held Over
> > - the one errata in state Rejected.
> > 
> For the full list, see  
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&presentation=table 

To clarify, the 14 ones that are in reported are the ones that needs
the WG to evaluate them and decided what needs to be done about them. 

The one held for document update are exactly the ones that should be
incorporated in an updated document. They are usually the ones that
have minor relevance but still worth doing something about when anyway
improving the document. 

The rejected needs to be looked at. If it is rejected due to that it
attempted to change a consensus decision, then that issue may still be
relevant. 

> 
> For the seventeen errata previously listed, someone has decided that
> they 
> fit wthin the parameters you've outlined.   However, as part of the
> WG review, 
> anyone may raise the issue if they feel that the suggested text
> changes a consensus
> decison.  The working group will have to address situations in which
> it might
> not be clear whether there was, in fact, a consensus decision on some
> particular 
> point.
> 

So let me try to clarify the seperation of concerns here. 

In this case we have a document updating the specifcation for NFS 4.1
although with a particular scope. In that process I see it is important
that all issues relveant to the scope of the update have been
considered. Thus, the Errata are input into determining if this
document are as good as possible and addresses raised issues. 

Secondly, the errata themselves are item on the previous version. Thus,
they also needs to be dealt with somehow. We could reject all that are
addressed by the future RFC, simply saying that they are not relevant
anymore. However, due to the limited scope of this updates I think it
might be clearer if we actually decided what state each of the reported
ones should be in and have a record of the decisions.

> > But, I will need per Errata recommendations from the WG, 
> 
> I'm assuming you will need these recommmendations for all the
> erratta, not just those that have been verified/accepted.

This point is specifically to these that are in Reported state. They
have not been processed and yet determined what to do with them. That
is why I think these are expecially important to go through.

Please keep this effort first of all focused on that if the errata
topic covers the part that is being updated in the limited scope
update. If not then it will not impact the last call. However, the
determination what to do with the errata will be needed later, and
applies to the future full update. 


Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------