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

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

There has been a lot of discussion about issues related to errata for rfc
5661, the need for working group review of those errata, and the possible
relationship of that review to the WGLC for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns. I think it is now time to draw a line
under that discussion.

Spencer originally indicated that review of the errata should proceed as
part of the WGLC for rfc5661sesqui.  While it is my perception that he has
accepted separating the errata review from the WGLC, there has been no
modification of his initial anouncement or clear plan for how the errrata
review is to proceed, giving rise to potential confusion.

I think we need to make clear that:

   - the review of errata is to be separated from the WGLC, except where
errata would interact with charges made by rfc5661sesqui.
   - as it appears that none of the errata affect text in Section 11 or its
subsections, the WGLC can proceed as it normally would, without special
reference to rfc5661 errata.
   - To provide for the per-errata recommendations needed by Magnus, a
review process is to proceed after the completion of WGLC for rfc5661sesqui.
   - The details of that review process, which should cover all 39 existing
errata, are to be announced by the working group co-chairs, before 9/24,
when the WGLC for rfc5661sesqui ends.
   - While it desirable for the working group members to familiarize
themselves with the existing errata, the working group's focus, until 9/24,
should be on the WGLC for rfc5661sesqui.

Any objections or requests for changes?

If not, can we adopt the above as our plan going forward?


On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 9:37 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > What you arrived at being important is that you review those erratas
> related to
> > document updating the old RFC, which is what you appear to have
> concluded.
>
> So far, we have only considered the issue of the verified errata on
> Spencer's list
> but my impresion is that you also want of a review of:
>
>
> - the 14 errata in state Reported (i.e. not really looked-at yet).
>
> - the 7 errata in state Held Over
>
> - the one errata in state Rejected.
>
> For the full list, see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&presentation=table
>
> > Please remember that what you can do to address an errata in a document
> > replacing the old RFC is much more than what is allowed in answering
> > the Errata itself. An errata is now [sic!] allowed to change a consensus
> > decision, only clarify the interpretation of the document.
>
> For the seventeen errata previously listed, someone has decided that they
> fit wthin the parameters you've outlined.   However, as part of the WG
> review,
> anyone may raise the issue if they feel that the suggested text changes a
> consensus
> decison.  The working group will have to address situations in which it
> might
> not be clear whether there was, in fact, a consensus decision on some
> particular
> point.
>
> > But, I will need per Errata recommendations from the WG,
>
> I'm assuming you will need these recommmendations for all the erratta,
> not just those that have been verified/accepted.
>
> > i.e. should it be rejected,
>
> I don't think the likelihood of any of the 17 accepted erratta being
> rejected is very high.
>
> I think there will be some discussion of the one rejected errata (2722).
> Given that we
> are loooing forward to a bis, I think we can decide on clarifying text.
> What is there now,
> while correct, does need some clarification/elaboration.
>
> > held for document update
>
> It is not very likely that the working group will decide that any of the
> verified errata belong in
> this category, although the possibility exists.
>
> I'm also worried about the seven errata currently in held over .   There
> might be cases that cannot
> be fully resolved in a four-week time-frame but we need to have that
> discussion and see where
> troublesome issues exist.
>
> > or approved. Note that you can suggest edits to the correction if you
> agree
> > with that things are unclear, but the suggested clarification is not
> good.
>
> I hope the working group will have some useful clarifications.   I expect
> there will
> be the opportunity for further wordsmithing by the editor of rfc5661bis,
> the working
> group when it reviews rfc5661bis, the IESG and the RFC editor.
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:10 AM Magnus Westerlund <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Back from my vacation.
>>
>> To clarify my position on Errata on existing RFCs. What I pressed for
>> was that the existing erratas in the system being processed in a
>> reasonable time frame (some months). What you arrived at being
>> important is that you review those erratas related to document updating
>> the old RFC, which is what you appear to have concluded.
>>
>> Please remember that what you can do to address an errata in a document
>> replacing the old RFC is much more than what is allowed in answering
>> the Errata itself. An errata is now allowed to change a consensus
>> decision, only clarify the interpretation of the document.
>>
>> But, I will need per Errata recommendations from the WG, i.e. should it
>> be rejected, held for document update or approved. Note that you can
>> suggest edits to the correction if you agree with that things are
>> unclear, but the suggested clarification is not good.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 15:24 -0400, David Noveck wrote:
>> > 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]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>> --
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus Westerlund
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
>> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>