Re: [nfsv4] draft-haynes-nfsv4-versioning-01

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Thu, 23 October 2014 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1731ABD36 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2T2iCf92pimR for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B9D71A9124 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id nt9so1149421obb.29 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IVBBiP49s5YJWB8JZ0Et1JIYtbw2mv26kOb0xhmwZ5U=; b=a9XN+ijq4J1AjtmQJxNEd17fIDbrwblDFSxhgWhRqpTFyxPs1asUPN8x+gvoh7Hn7O LYR8uRbMmmslgQ3qGr0OH3GswlCzRlqw1mAGt8lC2aFexkXVPvX8FGKiNpeXUrbP3ArY qo8CRbAT+ke/VAe0Z3WC60D0rcqg0Hxrtsa8RIeJoltR8i1KtjvKFmHNA2kG67AKAMRT Y5K5a+9WxlZ18m2+eEe4gZosg1btOIBL7btSa9RwF1yeQWKD9KxfWnrIPqUFQ3jRWfc0 7bVwAQCo/dpZmg4VzCV6Br7cV033Ey7gtIlPyzWd8T+SSh8T/5ddGcpBqRc+cgyQyDEI r9bw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.45.206 with SMTP id p14mr5024480oem.38.1414082310047; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.226.106 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <896EE07C-552B-412C-B30E-85A223AAA6B2@primarydata.com>
References: <896EE07C-552B-412C-B30E-85A223AAA6B2@primarydata.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:38:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jf5fY0iUr5EAcAtTt5o3756QOwkT-XVyu-AjYoYh2QrOA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
To: Tom Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2019ac617ba050619b1aa"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/G-sXuSFP3knEZnZJpb8u2nTSGLc
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] draft-haynes-nfsv4-versioning-01
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 16:38:31 -0000

> So this looks good to go with only two open items for me:

I assume that by "good to go", you mean "ready to convert to a working
group document".

While I think it is desirable to reduce the number of points of
disagreement, I want us to be clear that having no unresolved points of
disagreement is not a requirement for making a document into a working
group document.  That's a more appropriate standard for going into (and
exiting) WGLC.

As far as I'm concerned, for this to become a working group document, we
need rough consensus on two points:

   - Does the working group think a
   document describing versioning across all of NFSv4 a desirable thing to do?
   - is the current draft a reasonable vehicle to do that?  In other words,
   people can still think we got some things wrong, as long as they don't
   think we got things so wrong that we need to start again from scratch.


I haven't heard any disagreement on these points so far, but we might.  If
there is a consensus, we should take note of it, and move
the document forward.

As far as the two open items you mentioned, I'll respond to each item
separately.  We don't want to combine these threads into a tangled mess.


>