Re: [nfsv4] Working Group last call for NFSv4.1 - ending September 23rd

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

Accoding to the plan (plan sketch actually) that I presented at IETF105, we
woulld only deal with errata once rfc5661bis was adopted as a working group
document, so there would be no pressure for an early review.

However, if you would feel more comfortable getting this out of the way
fairly soon, I don't see any problems as long as it doesn't interfere with
needed document review.   Since I don't anticpate documents needing to be
reviewed immediately after rfc5661sesqui, I would suggest we start 9/24. I
think four weeks (ending 10/22), would be adequate and provide the basis to
incoprate these erratta at an earlier stage in the rfc5661bis process than
I orginally anticipated.


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:39 PM spencer shepler <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Let's change the discussion then to how would the working group like to
> move forward with errata review and its timeline.
>
> So, suggestion of a plan?
>
> Spencer
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:21 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> > The errata should be reviewed in this time frame
>>
>> They certainly should be reviewed but it is not clear to me why they
>> would need to be reviewed by 9/23.   That would make sense if the document
>> dealt with these erratta, but since it does not, as Chuck explained, I
>> don't see the point of giving the working group two items to review at the
>> same time: this document and the errata that you have cited.
>>
>> > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
>> part of this document's review
>>
>> I don't think that makes sense.  If the working group is given two things
>> to do as part of the same revIew, it make it likely that neither will be
>> done well.
>>
>> > and potential updated content for this document.
>>
>> I think the woorking group has decided that those potential updates will
>> not be realized, except for the potential  cases that Chuck mentioned.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:31 PM spencer shepler <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the additional context, Chuck.
>>>
>>> I was careful in my phrasing.  The errata should be reviewed in this
>>> time frame.  Resolution may or not mean document updates but the work does
>>> need to be completed.
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Spencer-
>>>>
>>>> > On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:57 PM, spencer shepler <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for the input, David.
>>>> >
>>>> > As working group chair, I am asking that the errata, at a minimum, be
>>>> reviewed during this time frame and potentially included in this update.
>>>> >
>>>> > Magnus, as AD, has registered his desire to see our errata addressed
>>>> and agree with him that the working group should complete this work.
>>>> >
>>>> > If the working group cannot find the time to review and address
>>>> errata on existing documents but has the time to write new documents and
>>>> take on new work - priorities don't seem to be aligned.
>>>>
>>>> That's not at all what's going on here. During the WG meeting, we did
>>>> indeed decide to handle the errata, just not in 5661sesqui. We decided
>>>> to address them by starting an rfc5661bis process.  Magnus was at that
>>>> meeting, and could have expressed a desire at that time to handle the
>>>> errata in sesqui, but he did not.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of the sesqui document is to extend the use of
>>>> fs_locations_info and deal properly with Transparent State Migration.
>>>> It is therefore outside the scope of this document to address all
>>>> outstanding errata. The only relevant errata for sesqui would be in
>>>> the area of Transparent State Migration or fs_locations_info, and
>>>> I wouldn't have an objection to reviewing those particular errata.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Spencer
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:10 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata
>>>> as part of this document's review and
>>>> > > potential updated content for this document.
>>>> >
>>>> > I would prefer that the working group focus on the document's
>>>> adequacy to provide the update of the multi-server namespace  functionality
>>>> replacing the work previouly dione by draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update and
>>>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update, but in the bis-like form that the
>>>> IESG has indicated it wants.
>>>> >
>>>> > While I would be interested to hear about existing and new errata, I
>>>> don't believe we want to take on the job of addressing all of those at this
>>>> time and expect us to do that work later as part of an rfc5661bis document
>>>> as I described in the slides I presented at IETF105.   I have heard no
>>>> comments from the working group indicating that anyone had a problem with
>>>> that plan and so I don't think it is likely that we will change it now.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:52 PM spencer shepler <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > This is notice of the start of the working group last call for this
>>>> document:
>>>> >
>>>> > Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol
>>>> >
>>>> > Data tracker version may be found here:
>>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns/
>>>> >
>>>> > Full text of this version may be found here:
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01.txt
>>>> >
>>>> > Note that I am setting the timeout for this last call at 4 weeks to
>>>> allow reviewers adequate time to review the document and provide comments.
>>>> >
>>>> > There are a number of errata that exist for 5661 (
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>>>> )
>>>> >
>>>> > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
>>>> part of this document's review and potential updated content for this
>>>> document.
>>>> >
>>>> > Again, working group last call ends end-of-day, September 23rd.
>>>> >
>>>> > Spencer
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>>>> > [e-mail]
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>>>> > [e-mail]
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chuck Lever
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>