Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 10:34 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 83A913A1066; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 nVo-gnAGhwig; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (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 AF4303A1063; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id l23so5862821edv.11; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=B/IKUjCNObvPSCVlR4tkj7e1pgV8qzajClH2xke//ag=; b=eadVj3HIF8/DBWtPaNKoQh6pnvOxRyOdGCYtZC1M0khqCiKmbsHNVp9CHaaxEu44pV Mu8SZC7ZOnBiEUTmecACK9D3PbYNEZSi/uXtSeAbf/toJC69d5WmUGQ9SKcm5ojPM8J4 p9mUHr+Q4HMXLuZNMNc8mmagj9J4Ilw0IgUnbEag2qx8XjDrfgfC6rPpxLz1mNBdHFa0 UArlqdX2+HxERw5EcbRTTZRiLh2VIWI+0qpDnq5s2rg64Dx1DbiqEl7dAzJz6pFoI2AO Z7f1q6g7HwJkhcTB7S1IU9dx3qnHMvDV8kCUxH7kMLUt+werOQ1lJV4OKwKy1q+LIx0V 6J5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B/IKUjCNObvPSCVlR4tkj7e1pgV8qzajClH2xke//ag=; b=ONg3nfRAiTNBoB+eZJqXUlNwnRN4+cSVG60F7wYNYaU7CV5Zi3bMUCiTK0ys2JFdwe jS7NpASQyLt2I+jfzkzf9EA7wATSitIpi4pn3ztoLinj/Wqwd983SdGCpCGly28pJZqD /OwTU5mm3qoONH8gX6NkROl9LjcJBLBUvxgNa/9BMlqMT8G9Q5cRXQx99AuNQj9GSdwO 5yV6WYTsNyLZEGmIbdQNrS4pFT0Ouw8ua4xBcJMKOXNb9Pu+JBQPxSCi9+nSQbNAbzrs pAsjUFJHWkzVE4wBCDJ/F9EDbm+xvEm3pcfjNMa+MszlJNIwotirbIW1j2IRQR/D011Q Ts8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Mn9sW/7ASWqtAtWCG7WrgSYKu9BdfOOKs/7TbgrRwAPnMpBGs BWzX21lR3sbBzWE8E48D+cTPdPf/QtcZPPr5wqs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzDGsEDSt/VnARrR8eDt7ZwsFFIQSj7jfwSDyEpYbiX+dn9gyb6FydiPgsRMwhqFvlJfPqT65NjLF9xeeFre8A=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:a125:: with SMTP id 34mr1975886edj.306.1596105248089; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <HE1PR0702MB3772011E83C71FC05A28983F95700@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CADaq8jc=-q8g_Wdp7aV+WSsjMRq6MeNCznQv=Nx5vAS6WGYHug@mail.gmail.com> <a03ba85ed3dc0070035891734e209fbf66e93de3.camel@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <a03ba85ed3dc0070035891734e209fbf66e93de3.camel@ericsson.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:33:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jeWPLakBG7R6ibjF0n7t1EtWSPmtzLR7iMbvkCTfnYjeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000562cd505aba636d9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/Mif4QFgdd1OiOKBvg8Zwys9T1pE>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:34:13 -0000

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:11 AM Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi David and WG,
>
> WG, I am requesting your input on this matter. I intended to make a
> decision on
> Monday (3rd of August) after 12:00 CEST.


I'm not sure what decision you are referring to, given that you are not an
author of this document.  It appears that the rfc editor has confused the
process by raising issues relating to the ongoing AUTH48 with you ex parte.
I hope this will not be repeated as it makes it harder for the authors to
deal with the process.





>
> Please see inline.
>
> On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 22:17 -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:01 AM Magnus Westerlund <
> > magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Authors and WG
> > >
> > > This relates to the ongoing AUTH48 for
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns
> >
> > I'm hoping it won't be going on.uch longer. I don't want it to go past
> > AUTH192.
> > >
> > > I got a question from the RFC-editor about some of the errata filed on
> RFC
> > > 5561. These where two errata that are editorial and verified. They are
> > > basically typos or other very basic issues but of potential importance
> to
> > > understanding. And maybe we should include these change into this
> document
> > > instead of continue to confuse the reader.
> >
> > What two erratta reports did they ask about?
>
> They asked me about Errata 2330 and 2548. Both very basic typos, which I
> believe
> they spotted in working with the document.


> >
> > Are they working on these updates now?  I'd like to keep good track of
> all the
> > last-minute changes being merged into this document
>
> No, they are not working on this. They are waiting for me with your input
> to
> tell them what to do with it.
>

If they wanted my input, they could have asked me for it, and avoided a lot
of confusion and delay.

Let me provide my input now: go ahead and make the changes for 2330 and
2358.


> >
> > > However looking in the Errata list there are more that of this basic
> type
> > > but wasn’t obvious in the copy editing.
> > >
> > > The Errata that I think falls into this category are:
> > >
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3558
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2062
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2249
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2280
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2324
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2330
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2548
> > >
> > > So the above ones is the ones I wonder if we simply should have the
> RFC-
> > > editor apply before publication?
> >
> > I'll ask the rfc editor of they can address these expeditiously, in the
> > context of AUTH48.  If they can, then it is just a question of Chuck and
> me
> > giving final approval to the AUTH48 changes.
>

So I'm asking the editor of they could address these expeditiously. Let the
authors know of any issues you see.  I hope the authors will be able to
make a decision at that point.


> Yes, the intention is to deal with this now before concluding AUTH48. And
> having
> looked at these Errata, this is less than an hours work to incorporate
> into the
> document. So from a work perspective, from the point I make a decision to
> do
> this change (if that is what I conclude) would take the RFC-editor less
> than a
> work day to get the authors the updated document, and then you authors
> would
> have to verify that these changes are properly done. From my perspective
> it is
> likely that this input period is the longest delay here.
>

Exactly the problem.


>
> >
> > > I think this is simply correcting things that the WG knows are wrong in
> > > RFC5661 and it could help the reader. I am aware of this is not
> following
> > > what was previous said about Errata, but I think this category should
> have
> > > been included as they appear very straight forward and have been
> previously
> > > classified as relevant for understanding and have risk of causing
> > > implementation errors. If the WG participants think we should stick
> with
> > > previous path and not include them I will listen. However, take a look
> at
> > > them before you make that assessment.
> >
> > Given that you have requested this change, I don't see waiting for a
> group
> > assessment of these verified errata reports in the middle of AUTH48.
>
> No, I have not requested these changes yet. I am asking the WG if you
> think this
> is the right step? I personally think it makes sense to incorporate the
> above
> listed Errata but no additional errata. However, I want the WG feedback on
> this
> matter.
>

I can't see the wg members deciding to spend their weekend sorting through
erratta reports.  I don't expect any meaningful feedback.


> > >
> > >
> > > There are two Errata that are listed as editorial and verified that
> are not
> > > straight forward nor necessary only editorial
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2328
> > > This appears to an Error code that is missing in RFC5661 and should be
> > > listed in Section 15.1.16. This doesn’t have text that can just be
> applied
> >
> > Doesn't seem very pressing.
> > >
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4215
> > > This Errata appears to fix a unclear statement in fourth paragraph of
> > > Section 22.2. However, I don’t see this as Editorial as it changes the
> IANA
> > > procedure even if what is currently written is confusing.
> > >
> > > So these I would leave for the proper bis to take care of.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Magnus Westerlund
> > >
> > >
> > >
> --
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Networks, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>