Re: [nfsv4] Thinking about an RFC5661bis.

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> You can grab a copy here:

> git clone [e-mail]:loghyr/5661bis.git

great.  Thanks.

> Also, not sure that the XML for RFC5661 is available.

i have a file i got from the RFc editor which i was told ws the XML  for
RFc5661.   I've never found inaccuracies but I have never gone through the
veification process of producing the RFC and diffing against the published
rfc.

> One of the things I have been doing is grabbing the last XML copy of a
document before the editors are
> done. I.e., they make straight changes to the XML before publishing.

> > > And again, the reason why we never started is because it is a lot of
work - both to edit and review.
>>
>> Everything we do is work, but I don't think it is as much work as you
think given the work already done in the documents published so far and
soon to be published.
>


> We said that exact same thing about RFC3530bis.

Good point.   Before starting on that, I could hear the phrase "dotting the
i's"' and not worry about Turkish.  However, despite the fact that we found
some troublesome issues that we had to address, i'm glad we did it and
don't regret we tackled the issues we found.   I don't think we'll find
comparable issues with RFC5661, but feel that if we do it is better to get
them addressed now and not let them fester.



ReplyReply allForward

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:58 PM Tom Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 28, 2019, at 12:50 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > While not volunteering, I do have a git repository for this work
> already started - last entry was 4-5 years ago.
> >
> > > I believe it also had some of the errata applied.
> >
> > This could be helpful if there is an .xml file that could be diffed
> against the .xml for the existing RFC5661.
>
> Yes, there is...
>
> orbie:5661bis loghyr$ git log --oneline
> 56b2b56 Merge branch 'master' of github.com:loghyr/5661bis
> facd52c Typo
> 98e73e5 Update instructions for getting xml2rfc
> a54892e another typo fix: client vs server
> a1c884f typo fix: notify_device_type4
> 2cf1b26 Get testx working
> b4a0b2c Aargh, make the hurting stop... Got to work with newer xml2rfc
> 758d013 Typos
> b28e561 Merge branch 'master' of github.com:loghyr/5661bis
> e2402b0 Update address
> cee7f7a Fix up NFS4ERR_DQUOT's value
> 8d7292e Merge branch 'master' of github.com:loghyr/5661bis
> 0fc3ee5 LOCKT can expire
> 9f736f7 Apply Asmita's errata
> 798cac6 Andy proposed some clarity on name lookup security
> 4ff393c Merge branch 'master' of github.com:loghyr/5661bis
> 710d3e8 Fix spaces in Makefile
> c5ec1ac Fix ipr
> f5028a8 Pull out xml2rfc as this is not the source control for it.
> e578199 Marc Eshel\'s Errata 3226
> 91b2d4e Make idnit friendly
> 9078e8e Fix up xml2rfc
> ef1ced3 Fix some formatting
> 62774b0 ERRATA: layoutget serialization
> e364335 Small typos
> 8741ca6 Applied David Black's errata
> e797eca Fix vspace issue
> a8d2b06 Fix up testx
> e302743 Tighten up the LAYOUTCOMMIT errata
> 6faa82b Fix typo
> bc9a378 Added Implications of LAYOUTCOMMIT on file layouts
> 8964638 Take care of the errata
> 68ad4d6 More documentation on the documentation
> bdd32f5 Archived original rfc5661.txt and the first official copy of the
> bis
> a963a32 Start tracking changes
> 740a42b Fix Makefile copy error
> 284f6b5 Fix Makefile copy error
> 0b27cec Wrong Makefile
> 824c2c6 Create project, based off of fresh pull of RFC 5661
>
> You can grab a copy here:
>
> git clone [e-mail]:loghyr/5661bis.git
>
> Also, not sure that the XML for RFC5661 is available.
>
> One of the things I have been doing is grabbing the last XML copy of a
> document before the editors are done. I.e., they make straight changes to
> the XML before publishing.
>
>
> >
> > > And again, the reason why we never started is because it is a lot of
> work - both to edit and review.
> >
> > Everything we do is work, but I don't think it is as much work as you
> think given the work already done in the documents published so far and
> soon to be published.
> >
>
>
> We said that exact same thing about RFC3530bis.
>
>
>