[nfsv4] Re: New Version Notification for draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt

[Chris Inacio <[e-mail]>]

The document is in GitHub at this point, and Zahed is no longer the AD for the working group.

It would be great to create a GitHub issue for the change you want:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-nfsv4/rfc5661bis

chris


> On May 18, 2025, at 6:25 AM, Pali Rohár <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> Hello David, I would like to ask, could you inline errata 7669 into the
> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis document? Errata is reported on:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7669
> 
> I see that first errata https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7667 was
> already included but second one eid7669 not yet.
> 
> Zahed, could you look at those two errata and verify them if you are allowed?
> 
> On Saturday 02 November 2024 11:56:53 David Noveck wrote:
>> I'm not allowed to do that.  See the errata verification login page for  a
>> list of those who can (e.g. IESG members, etc.).  I expect Zahed is allowed
>> to do that, if he is so inclined.
>> 
>> I can include these changes in the next draft of
>> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis or the first draft of
>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5662bis if the chairs finally follow through on the
>> adoption call for that document.
>> 
>> I take it that there are no objections to your proposed changes.  Not sure
>> where the official verification process is right now but it is basically
>> unreliable since mail is often sent to outdated email addresses and
>> never followed up on.   Since there is a bis document  in process, the
>> important thing is what that new document says and it might not be worth
>> anyone's time to deal with the intricacies of the errata process for these
>> needed changes.  Once we reach WGLC for that document, the consensus
>> decision to publish addresses the document correction and it will not
>> matter whether the report is verified, held, or rejected.
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 7:48 PM Pali Rohár <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello, would you be able to verify those two erratas eid7667 and eid7669?
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday 18 September 2024 09:58:25 David Noveck wrote:
>>>> I will submit -05, with those fixes, as soon as the author tools are
>>>> working again.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 9:38 AM Pali Rohár <[e-mail]
>>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, thanks for this! The still unaddressed are eid7667 and eid7669 as
>>> of
>>>>> the last rfc5662bis-04 draft.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wednesday 18 September 2024 08:35:01 David Noveck wrote:
>>>>>> 7386 is addressed in rfc5661bis-08.   I don't know of any unaddressed
>>>>>> errata reports.for this set of documents,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 12:16 PM Pali Rohár <
>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello and thank you for information.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm looking at it again, as I sent list of erratas in my first
>>> email
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/05tLPoZl1Jh8VmUaY_nFRAmAMeA/
>>>>>>> and two of erratas eid7667 and eid7669 are for RFC 5662, the
>>> document
>>>>>>> which you are updating in this thread (XDR definitions). And
>>> another
>>>>> one
>>>>>>> is eid7386 which is for RFC 8881 (spec itself) which you referred
>>> in
>>>>>>> other email thread.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think that in this rfc5662bis document you can handle only
>>> eid7667
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> eid7669. The last one needs to go via other rfc5661/rfc8881-bis
>>>>> document
>>>>>>> update.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Pali
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Friday 06 September 2024 04:02:47 David Noveck wrote:
>>>>>>>> The formal status of these is "Reported" which really means they
>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>> been reviewed yet.  Normally, the review process is triggered by
>>> an
>>>>> email
>>>>>>>> sent to the authors.  In thjs case, two of the authors are no
>>> longer
>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>> in the IETF but since I am, there might have been an email sent
>>> to my
>>>>>>>> netapp email.  I will look but if I  missed it a year ago, it us
>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>> not recoverable now.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There should be a way to kick off the review process without the
>>>>> email
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure one exists.  I will send mail to ietf-action to see.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 6:03 PM Pali Rohár <
>>>>> [e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hello, Thank you for reply and looking at it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, what is the format status of those erratas?
>>>>>>>>> I have reported year ago but they have not been reviewed yet.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Pali
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 05 September 2024 13:44:24 David Noveck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Will include these in -05.  Should be out next week.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 1:30 PM David Noveck <
>>> [e-mail]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I'll take a look.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 12:28 PM Pali Rohár <
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello David, could you look at errata reports which I
>>> sent for
>>>>>>>>> RFC5662?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to review them and incorporate fixed into
>>>>> new bis
>>>>>>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pali
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 05 September 2024 12:09:32 David Noveck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, an earlier version of this draft was supposed to
>>> be
>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adoption call process, starting "at or before"
>>> IETF120.  If
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason/issue explaining why it has not been adopted, I
>>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of that so that I can address whatever
>>> issues
>>>>> exist,
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us to make progress on the respecification effort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This case is much better than that for the security
>>>>> document,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lingered in the adoption-requested-but-no-response
>>> state for
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, but we need to avoid a repetition of that
>>>>> situation,  I
>>>>>>>>> think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chairs need to follow up on all the documents for which
>>>>>>> adoption has
>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested, in a reasonable time, which has not been the
>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:49 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: David Noveck <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new version of Internet-Draft
>>>>>>>>> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully submitted by David Noveck and posted to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Name:     draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Revision: 04
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Title:    Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
>>> Version
>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>> External
>>>>>>>>>>>> Data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Representation Standard (XDR) Description
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:     2024-09-05
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Group:    Individual Submission
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages:    79
>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTMLized:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diff:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   This document provides the External Data
>>> Representation
>>>>>>> Standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   (XDR) description for Network File System version 4
>>>>> (NFSv4)
>>>>>>> minor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   version 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   It includes protocol extensions made as part of
>>>>>>> respecification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   effort for minor version 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   It obsoletes and replaces RFC5662.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]