Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review

[spencer shepler <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dave-
>
> > On Aug 21, 2017, at 11:45 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > I have only very minor quibbles with any of this content, none worth
> > > bringing up.
> >
> > If they are not brought up, then the draft I send to the chairs and ads
> > cannot include them.  Please make sure that you make me aware of
> > issues that need to be addressed, even if they might seem minor right
> > now.
>
> Perhaps I should have said "No objections."
>
>
> > > I suggested privately, and would like to bring up on the list, that
> > > it would also be helpful to have a repository for our "stretch goals"
> > > and "almost ready" or "wacky" ideas (thanks Bill Baker for that term).
> >
> > Those are three different categories.  What I'm thinking about is
> > a list of "potential goals", which could include things that might
> > become goals if there were a person to take on the work and provide
> > a target date.
>
> Thanks, looking forward to seeing it!
>
>
> > It could also include things that are not quite well-defined
> > enough for us to be sure about what document might really be done,
> > and ideas of various degrees of "wackiness", although we will try to
> > avoid things that the working group thinks are not worth considering.
>
> Our usual criterion for considering "wacky" ideas is a personal
> I-D. I'm OK with placing these ideas in a "requires I-D"
> category.
>
>
> > > It could help create an institutional memory, along with the mailing
> > > list and IETF meeting notes (hint hint). We obviously have some worthy
> > > ideas, as noted by Tom's "Next steps" presentation during IETF 99,
> > > even if they aren't completely formed.
> >
> > I will be producing that list, but it will take a while.  Maybe by the
> end of
> > September.
> >
> > I have looked at Tom's presentation and there are a number of items that
> > could be potential goals, although none is really "wacky".  In some of
> the
> > cases, the presentation isn't clear about what specific things the
> working group
> > might do to further these ideas, but I can consult with Tom and Trond to
> get the
> > necessary clarity.
>
> I'd like to see these items and any clarifications discussed
> on-list first, or (preferably) in I-D form. Perhaps that's a
> high bar, but the WG deserves a clear problem statement and
> explanation of a proposed solution, so that it's members can
> evaluate new ideas fairly.
>
>
> > > Can you post subsequent revisions of the Charter and milestone list
> > > only in ASCII text? That also makes it possible to simply hit "Reply"
> > > and respond narrowly to individual parts of the text. Thanks!
> >
> > I'll do that, since the IETF seems to be stuck in the last century.
> There
> > might somewhere be a plan to bring the IETF into the twenty-first
> century,
> > but, from what I've seen, 2099 might be too aggressive a target date :-(.
>
> It's not just the IETF.
>
> There are some on the list who cannot open a .pptx document.
> There are some who refuse to, out of principal. There are
> some who are behind corporate firewalls that discard e-mail
> attachments as a policy, or that place size restrictions on
> in-bound e-mail.
>
> My own interest is archival, but I think we should strive for
> inclusiveness.
>

Dave,

Please go ahead and post the current draft charter and milestones to the WG
alias in text form so that we are inclusive as Chuck suggests.

Spencer