Re: [nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 05 December 2016 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9167129C3C for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:09:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZvRXKEjTmAsA for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA95129C4F for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id b126so349664405oia.2 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:09:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3N0Gh7N3PblX113rTdPTyTjKYdXn+RoI1warviNNJ0o=; b=Z97KkjFxRA3hsRoSIaP0ia2sUt8lvSqYOlxvs+0KPOGZMQ50xLoynl5s2KmOCNhlJW NwlAe1rfO7REyO0a7gzCxnB5BYxrFjvIUWPUdJbpNrTok5Ot/F4NYLu19AVv6qLLRyto cwMcDgziK/RBbbV0bGJOOg+IVw9vq+aX/9QLTrFj4PGl00GhOCemM5Z2hc9CWupg7BbZ uzVerGK4OcyLwEN71zZtLrXOdN40ahZLgDW3jRAROfWOy9dHKO3W4wmMqNKV6I2QRRLp 8uUVAZOeG/fbmStbGOCLwlrlNFNWPfx5HgqEcml9I+pK/wqOXGhK/v1by5W0Qb5LG3vr s5Xg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3N0Gh7N3PblX113rTdPTyTjKYdXn+RoI1warviNNJ0o=; b=T4bxw8bSS7neQqE4Kd4yTXkn4mxmhRK7lPGO/Gdq7fZb/RC58Fm99kKNilfXZLG1tN HOfED6YVhfOFtc9NWf84plFsMyU7yDoCMGRPH5AkXwBZT6SbAeD3YuEd5Eknj2wfq2cR SkqgFRsVqtj0yZW6efws/lowh6IC74TdU0AfbDrGbYGFvZK2wJTFdLi5FzWFPdTgH4qd tpHHReKIHxUFP8m7wTG+rd2DLFpTEGTV6lNaUd9rLvTgBFnr2BnCE4CqUPDFf4rXIQ1x uvSmIjlZ0fVgiIs+tPgRBut/qnpCB4ykOLXnNkvX1QbH6cbFotkMzY1f+79n8S/tgN2r c1zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00pwMW0rHB4snKTuj29eZyaTIgLGZD1Ca0cZZ7zmSez6mzskAkHJ/lIeFeJlxaPPTJhUOeEaAXV+I1VzQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.58.119 with SMTP id j110mr30368951otc.208.1480961394692; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:09:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.137.202 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:09:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAFt6BamN+3tACzqaGUUR_fM9K_=CnqB_uDBz0wZmGM+-PYaDnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADaq8jfEiiiYuzmwSKy4NKQ0dtAUF6YiAf+ZGaJnvGnVAhYqtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6BamN+3tACzqaGUUR_fM9K_=CnqB_uDBz0wZmGM+-PYaDnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:09:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jfJNs3Aqnh4r74TQqtiEkzELAaKyRMwX4dX6Y3whSUDXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11493caedb5c530542ed31c0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/Gu6SqNnv9kLbZCjAHx-u1E1LcGM>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 18:09:59 -0000

> I have done that and when consensus has been determined for the
documents, I will move them to "WG Consensus: waiting for writeup".

I'd appreciate it if you did that.

> And on that topic, it is the responsibility of the WG co-chairs to
determine consensus at the end of the last call period.

Given that there were changes to be made, I thought it necessary to provide
people with the new document and a reasonable expectation of a timeline for
making a decision.

If my proposed timeline for making my opinion known on 12/9 is in some way
problematic for you, let me know why.

> I appreciate your document summary and timeline for updating the document
but it is my responsibility to notify of consensus or not on the documents.

I thought you said it was the responsibility of the WG co-chairs.  In any
case, you have a vehicle to notify people of your affirmative judgement
regarding consensus, via changing the document status to  "WG Consensus:
waiting for writeup".  I assume there is another way for you (or Beepy) to
indicate a negative judgment regarding consensus if you should feel that is
necessary.

I did not the use word "consensus" as it appears you are quite sensitive
about this matter.  Nevertheless, all members of the working group
(including the author) may have opinions about whether it is appropriate
for a document to go forward and it should be expected  that they will
communicate their opinions.  I recognize that, from a procedural point of
view, the WG chairs' view is considered dispositive.

> What I need from the other authors is if they plan on updates at this
point and when those will be completed.

Part of shepherding is cat herding.  I think it comes with the territory.


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:27 PM, spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Thanks for the reminder about updating the datatracker, David.  I have
> done that and when consensus has been determined for the documents, I will
> move them to "WG Consensus: waiting for writeup".
>
> And on that topic, it is the responsibility of the WG co-chairs to
> determine consensus at the end of the last call period.  I appreciate your
> document summary and timeline for updating the document but it is my
> responsibility to notify of consensus or not on the documents.
>
> What I need from the other authors is if they plan on updates at this
> point and when those will be completed.
>
> Spencer
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:03 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Working Group Last Call for the following documents, which started on
>> 11/10, ended on 12/2:
>>
>>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning (initiated on -07)
>>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs (initiated on -03)
>>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask (initiated on -02)
>>
>> As the purpose of WGLC is to elicit comments, it is natural  that those
>> comments prompt a set of changes before producing a document that is ready
>> to go forward to the IESG with.  I don't think there is any official state
>> for the period between the end of WGLC, and the production of a documernt
>> that incorporates WG feedback.  I think our practice has been to simply
>> leave the document in the WGLC State until it is ready to go forward.
>>
>> In this particular case, the situation is complicated by the fact that
>> the transition to WGLC was not recorded on 11/10, as it should have been.
>> Unless there is a way to do this retroactively (unlikely), the Datatracker
>> history is going to be misleading.  Although one would like this history to
>> be accurate, people will just have to be aware that this kind of
>> discrepancy exists.  This will probably only turn out to be a real problem
>> for potential future PhD candidates whose thesis topic involves the
>> history of file access protocols.
>>
>> In any case, I believe that, as far as my document is concerened,
>> versioning-08 is what we should be going forward with.  I've already sent
>> out an email detailing how recent comments were addressed.  In order to
>> give people time to state any objections or remaining issues, I will
>> wait until 12/9 before requesting that we go forward with this document.  I
>> assume that other document authors will post their response to comments
>> (and submit a new version if necessary) within the next few weeks and we
>> will consider the period of time up until that point as effectively part of
>> WGLC, even though new WGLC comments would not be appropriate after 12/2.
>>
>> As discussed at IETF96, there is a general feeling that the IESG would do
>> well to consider these documents together.  However, I don't think they
>> need to be tightly synchronized.  Once we have a set of documents ready to
>> go forward, we can discuss arrangements to have them considered by the
>> IESG.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>>
>