Re: [nfsv4] WG adoption of draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

As there was no response to this request from the chairs, let me provide an
update.  If the chairs have some relevant input, they can add it.

Chris did not provide an update. and expressed no views about the
situation.   I drew the conclusion that he is not involved in this and is
assuming Brian is taking care of it.

Brian and I spoke during the official meeting time, but, since there were
no other attendees, we had the opportunity to clarify some matters related
to this issue.

   - Brian told me matters had been delayed by his illness (covid-19).
   - We discussed the pending documents and agreed to have a more detailed
   discussion later.

 At that later meeting, held on 1/19:

   - I reiterated the original request for an adoption call (originally
   made 12/20/2023) and Brian agreed to follow up.
   - We clarified the need for Bran to send the WG a proposed list of
   consensus items, taken from Appendix B of *draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-07.
   *There had previously been confusion about this with Brian looking at
   Appendix C of *draft-ietf-nfsv4-rvc5661bis *and not finding those item.
   I referred him to the correct appndix and stressed that the current focus
   needed to be on the security document, given that the original request for
   an adoptional call, made in 2022 jad been lost track of.

I expect Brian to  notify the WG about the adoption call in the next few
days.  Once that is done, I would be able to  send out an almost complete
draft of the ACL implementation report for ONTAP that I have been working
on and possibly make it an agenda item, together with Brian's list of
consensus items to discuss, for the next interim meeting on 1/30.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 9:56 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Chairs, please response to David's request and share your views.
>
> //Zahed
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:53 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Although Gmail thinks that this a reply, it is actually a follow-up for
>> my request sent on 12/20/2023. So there is no issue of me replying to
>> myself and no issue of multiple personality syndrome to worry about :-)
>>
>> I had originally hoped that the three weeks to the next wg interim
>> meeting would give us time to complete a two-week comment period and allow
>> us to resolve this long-deferred matter at the 1/16 interim meeting.  Given
>> the time that has already elapsed, that no longer seems possible. Sigh!
>>
>> I have received no updates regarding this request.  If there are
>> impediments that would delay prompt work on this request, I need whoever is
>> dealing with this request to let me know about the issue so that it can get
>> addressed.
>>
>> If that is not possible, we will have to address the matter at the 1/16
>> interim meeting.  Given what happened with the original request to adopt
>> -06, I don't think that we can again simply wait passively and hope that
>> one of the chairs is taking care of this matter.  It makes more sense for
>> me and whichever chair takes responsibility for this to discuss the next
>> steps at this and subsequent interim meetings, allowing us  to make sure we
>> have process  that leads to a prompt resolution of this matter.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 5:23 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to formally request that the working group adopt this
>>> document, currently at its -07 draft, as a working group document.
>>>
>>> I suggest that the working group be asked for its comments as soon as
>>> possible. Given that the next interim meeting is scheduled for 1/16, this
>>> should allow a two-week period for comments  plus time to summarise the
>>> results and present a decision at the interim meeting.  This will give us
>>> an opportunity to formulate a plan of action, whatever the decision is.  I
>>> don't think we can afford a repeat of the situation with the previous
>>> adoption call in which there was uncertainty about the precise contours of
>>> the working group's response and a consequent delay as the draft whose
>>> adoption was request ceased to be relevant.
>>>
>>> One important point regarding the adoption call is that we need to
>>> clearly distinguish issues with the precise contents of the draft, which
>>> could be addressed after adoption from feelings, if they exist,, that the
>>> current draft is not a suitable vehicle in its current form , for the
>>> working group to address  NFSv4 security issues.  If the latter, we need to
>>> understand what changes might be required, so those changes cab made,
>>> allowing the working group to continue to make progress.
>>>
>>