Re: [nfsv4] Thinking about an RFC5661bis.

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

>    https://github.com/loghyr/3530bis

> and check that everything applicable there also makes it to 5661bis.

The simplest way to do this is to start the bis document based on the
work that has already been done, as long as Tom is Ok with it being
used in that way.  We would still have to check the existing erratta list
for
things that did not make it into Tom's repo.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:17 PM J. Bruce Fields <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:37:28AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> > A number of review comments regarding draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update
> have
> > raised the issue of a possible bis document for NFSv4.1.   These range
> all
> > the way from those assuming that mv1-msns-update is a stepping stone on
> the
> > way to the bis document, which I agree with, to those that are asking us
> to
> > explain why we haven't already done that.   I will have to respond to
> that
> > latter comment, but I'm hoping to delay that until after the telechat.
> >
> > In any case, it seems that we have accumulated enough changes to and
> issues
> > with RFC5661 that we need to start thinking about producing a bis
> > document.  These include:
> >
> >    - All the material in mv1-msns-update modiying Section 11 and other
> >    parts of RFC5661.
> >    - The need to replace Section 14 (Internationalization) of RFC5661
> with
> >    something like Section 12 of RFC7530.
> >    - Revising Section 2.4 of RFC5661 so it no longer contradicts RFC8178.
> >    - Updating Section 12 of RFC5661 to be in line with RFC8434.
> >    - Reflecting all of the verified RFC5661 erratta.  There were
> seventeen
> >    last time I checked.  There may also be things discussed as possible
> >    erratta, that were considered to big for the erratta process, but
> could be
> >    done as part of a bis document.
> >
> > If anyone knows of other material that should go into such a document
>
> I believe there were also just a ton of smaller typos and stuff.  If we
> do this, then somebody should also go through Tom's 3530bis git repo:
>
>         https://github.com/loghyr/3530bis
>
> and check that everything applicable there also makes it to 5661bis.
>
> --b.
>