Re: [nfsv4] draft blackout periods and virtual interims.

David Noveck <> Mon, 06 July 2020 11:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDB23A13AF; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 04:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzjZvGkQUmYM; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 04:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B188F3A13AB; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 04:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a1so41901862ejg.12; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 04:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6nzzuDa4Yd4hqHLZGJeJsQeRsQwjBciA1uon5rA153A=; b=Ra4eC0rOj+wmYm41EkTMFQ9Rx1Ydubrg+Y8PwGTEom5xXywUF8hDHhWsg+c0csa5Zx Vqc6isV66/FUNuYHEIy0ZxC5M+aqCtLYR2NZ4oytPt7S6O5tN365bydqvbi1y4D+hHJG H80Z/uqtGFWae5gBgctEdUpq2ZgiLHTBt/9hjdn78b1yJ+OyBnBdJsm8IT5oAj3E6ha6 lh/PZfGvxN/FVGLJexuL98T+gGQ0mjdsI48Z360zCfapSI2hVJqcrauemH3ZKZ2cyX3G 6mK2FGlCidlZotZKTnMDQOtQQiW8B6LoqfS6sx1eRW9txCvBjzmFG3C0NI6VjRXcC9yo VPkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6nzzuDa4Yd4hqHLZGJeJsQeRsQwjBciA1uon5rA153A=; b=RwYMriyrcuoTbOMkM+FEwL4LbD5YvE+v7fVmQMCW4L+kcc4tft4UVo3MXM/U5UYdzg 0qhk2h1+4vH+sqP9XmBKLlpDFXQaLL/7bdnYUdC+d6KWSR9Dl/CGpmBOhWVTvsdvZfBd mCDqmJRgfdqP+Zr1YU3bklLG8xLxR0VxqFaeynZBZqPAkEOMBLWjoMKrXO5K7kwulTiL /2XWc/lYjfV4raGB5bDdHsZlfw0cNjt+GWg1IK6ae1ouz2y3JQDRyx0Gg4nBHQMDVpSm P1Z9GHC9IPfXD3GXDf3bk900HWSKzjdOJlnHNYgInMWUWqcNg6wuOujv4cyQWoK0TjIR GrYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530n4CdqOgNEfOUwXWX8BcxxxQHdoiQWswMGflKCjZyV+Yx914Lx DZ2iOl7SZPdmXLCyqMK3AmboVCBxd6ZDig1bT1o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwSCK+eRCjZK843W8JbVnLhQSDKpcvT0Iut9XM5JQTIvUo3KJJDLDpWCFxPCqTwzmpZvLDgD3js2gPeVr7OGTs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:40f5:: with SMTP id no5mr42238067ejb.149.1594034123209; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 04:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Noveck <>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 07:15:12 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, "faibish, sorin" <>
Cc: nfsv4-chairs <>, NFSv4 <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ac80cd05a9c3fd6f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] draft blackout periods and virtual interims.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 11:15:26 -0000

Since I have not heard back from Magnus about this and, since time is
getting short I have done my best to research this issue on the net.  I
have found no bar to this even for face-to-face interim meetings while the
rules for virtual meetings are generally way more liberal.

Sorin, please submit your document when you are ready and we'll discuss it
if we are able to do so.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:36 AM David Noveck <> wrote:

> [sf] We made some progress and Christophe did a first review and started a
>> git where we checked the document and started the review. I am still
>> waiting for a last review of David Black. I might post the draft as it is
>> now (needs more cleanup) so the WG can start a review.
> > I'd like that, but I think I have to check with Magnus to make sure
> there is no rule preventing us from discussing a very recently submitted
> draft, as there would be in the case in which we were meeting the
> > week of IETF 108. Sigh.
> I need to check to make sure we are safe, from a rules-compliance point of
> view, in asking Sorin to post his latest drafts, so that we could discuss
> it on 7/9.  If we can't do this, progress in this area is foing to be
> impeded.   I feel that, since our goal here is to communicate, we might as
> well just do that as soon as possible, but I realize the IETF might not
> agree.