Re: [nfsv4] rfc5666bis and rpcrdma-bidirection progress update

William Allen Simpson <> Wed, 30 November 2016 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377DB129682 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:25:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id du8MgCTSNzJq for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A08E129FD3 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c21so324407238ioj.1 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:23:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:references:from:to:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ioAWCmeypV69hzXZXNwb8Hq8GKM+HP5LbJ2hFK2F2cU=; b=O1LcRWRj8cPg538oCwDp8BK1Ow+dbhK9gawDo21JCvCV2+VHDiQnbpTEf4aDV+m6Ds O30z3y74fqYyVCfp6ce/1JsmsTiSX+mWiU7FnJ50DIQuF1Slzh4TJEuGpL3vMJHr0VsE 2NPAUweArRluTxszq0ytzx86HCIUHUQIZrGEiS07S9JAVauO3uM5X+sIujT6XvMT056X BTIfmqAJ43o66UEReMIr69nMmCR0HY2GVjGFKvKAwwddP9mb1qqqAH9WiWZqyxKd4pOn DQ212PP/n2leQ8f7ZXoU0QvMqMIFbUXtd2cLDofJoF8E3uhhgwUrWroNUzzzCE83d71B SDyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:from:to:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ioAWCmeypV69hzXZXNwb8Hq8GKM+HP5LbJ2hFK2F2cU=; b=V08Dco8kkxmGPp0fptUFMgs//kauRfbcMMBC4rUvly/f4FxI25GVFg4xKMKn+SWzOj qrkyuWtSQ0u8h/u8q1FRTfqVV69Qlz7aTErRFckwsF1NlnV3Ul9rBPjGDncufCzyUNS7 JYUdIhA6AkSIJDm3pDbPLSja4ioyEhWAUhd2BbgqpWg0l/enlPomShwwyJrtZGq84Hsd P/29odHhXF1BKvuOSoN3vC2ZbeLeqTQXAKHoTVtGAV8M9dTFG50dt9yBJTD68n1ZI5aB 5RfpFRkoBK8HqEDxbwFBLMpnu6dlkOrCSMnm4AkZy4fYn9RVg3LnbbCaOUo4GG69JrsH Gm1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00kqAoe4o+Qs9IgQWrBdYLr5+zhUJ/LFpTpb/drJl9Wk4wNERlglTu/eOcuXfiRwA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p202mr26408764iod.47.1480505024635; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:23:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Waste.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n199sm2461468itg.17.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:23:44 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: William Allen Simpson <>
To: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:23:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] rfc5666bis and rpcrdma-bidirection progress update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:25:15 -0000

On 11/29/16 2:35 PM, David Noveck wrote:
> Perhaps we can revisit your suggestions when some of the documents
> currently in WGLC (three!) require shepherding.  For a very long time,
> Spencer has been the only person doing shepherding and I don't feel
> that this situation can go on forever.
Speaking as the NSFnet oversight person who initiated the overthrow of
the IAB because of their inability to approve RFCs and WG creation in a
timely manner (6 months).

And as a member of both the POISED and POISSON WGs that wrote the
IETF process.

There is a reason that 6 months is written into our standards process --
that is the minimal time for complete delivery of an RFC changing the
status of a draft, to Proposed and then to (now) Full Standard.  It's
enough time for review.  We said so fairly clearly.

There is a reason that we picked 24 months for failure to mature.

When it comes to Last Call, Spencer is just a member of the WG.  His
comments are due at the same time as everybody else.

Shepharding is just prompting the IESG to get the items on their
agenda.  It shouldn't take more than one person....