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

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

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]