Re: [nfsv4] nfsv4.x

I believe that going ahead with this has rough working group consensus,
although the matter has not been formally put to the group in just that
form (probably because it seemed as if there was no v4.2).  I think it
should be put to the group and those objecting should have an
opportunity to raise their objects.

There have been a number of messages in which v4.x requirements were
specified in terms of rough WG consensus plus some set of other things.
This raises confusion as the sets mentioned are not always the same and
it isn't clear who would doing the judging as to whether those were met.
I think it would make things a lot simpler if we said the requirement
was rough WG consensus, period.  Statements that sufficient interest and
activity are important, or working code is important could then be
understood as not in addition to WG consensus but simply part of the
discussion explaining what considerations were most important to the
specific individuals raising these as important issues for everybody to
consider.

-----Original Message-----
From: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Dean Hildebrand
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:24 PM
To: nfsv4@ietf.org; Spencer Shepler
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] nfsv4.x

  On 9/9/2010 12:23 PM, Spencer Shepler wrote:
> I would like to clarify potential NFSv4.2 (or more appropriately
NFSv4.x) efforts.
> If there is interest, energy and rough WG consensus, new work can be
> undertaken; rough consensus and running code is the rule.  Having said
that,
> we do have responsibilities to curate past efforts (e.g. rfc35030bis).
>
> As Dave Noveck has suggested in the past, the size of the protocol and
> its resultant documents likely require varying methods of capturing
> new protocol features.  Smaller, targeted, reviewable protocol updates
> are my personal preference.
>
> Spencer

We are still very committed to our sparse file support draft 
(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-00.txt) and

strongly believe it should be included in NFSv4.2.  My impression from 
the 3 IETF meetings we presented it at is that there is strong support.

Also, it fits both desires/requirements perfectly, 1. virtualization 
improvement, 2. small, targeted, and reviewable.

Dean

> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4