Re: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: (with COMMENT)

David Noveck <> Tue, 23 May 2017 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E91F12E054; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elQbzOkp_9cZ; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D831312940F; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k91so107826676ioi.1; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=huMcpPpseprxRcfAL2TJXyPxUXBRwMM+3TNo7H+x8u8=; b=CmMRY48ByDE7e5UGyslP5T1H2hPxkJZLIT9V5/QznHGs9O5Y5LQ3M6vG3eZsiRp9AZ IjhfsIP4sgjEeA3LwFryVHoHeUAPRm0MMatpaeA0vPhoyZV0y5UH2kh8EGvATs5hcJwY eHBU5VpOJZ6syAhtD2NJpwI51nkj9vnhxjy5YKlUce1TzjX20dH05st9pAKJ55OLFnam oBo0rnMIGfXVmeHsApwbEKyCspKCxvwKeUbRFvyV71t8AcHSZXmcRIRxevMkMLUuTC3s mZj6IMVPNPzrjuln4QgSoKJ9cVQsh6lLokxy+CVAJVog5WLX47Qcsk7u8QsSjyl7sGZM Mn3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=huMcpPpseprxRcfAL2TJXyPxUXBRwMM+3TNo7H+x8u8=; b=YZ+ThJ7mqDnhYraW35MLNyystvjLnDpVUgzKdpsy2OtCQF2bR1AHhOMWO4e/DGcbZp oWrJbAS8dhZb4w5DlJSy3gajrJjxuy3yNLSLBDOdbMYbEuzM5iAauqe9deJZYLKeCbPw 3HSOlt4To3grsKAkQQiVLYFv1u/bZHDeNtfk/OtrYl3UHUFD0PCLn4CE7rWTxCt3MF2l C4Gjv51cHkikmXRjA8oVwntJboSkAQxU2oTIYrjIkpzHXRwDLm7HrKCsk0244TKrYmN4 IQNsWlNAJ72adLuS3DJfBx8aihIMtUKHJkghyvaBDWOTShy5ps3SdJKnhHc2G0iRmRzX tLdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAdoPo7YOi1wnVJE9eYkaNDmEGbdHPOiJ5/Oio1t6L/FcVUii9+ MpP2fiqphJlzoHWXf4YUSpKxYUO4jA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 66mr29492296iog.163.1495583543200; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: David Noveck <>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 19:52:22 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Ben Campbell <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Spencer Shepler <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113edff8d31758055039ad51"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 23:52:26 -0000

> Out of curiosity, why isn't this material more appropriate as a BCP?

I'm not sure.  RFC 1818 (BCP 1) is not very specific about what is and
isn't appropriate in a BCP and I haven't been able to find any other
material on the matter.

One problem with publishing this as anything other than a standards-track
document is that this document's function is to replace the existing
of NFSv4 versioning, which consists of eliminating the existing rules which
only allowed minor versioning and establishing new, more flexible rules.

It might be that the new rules could be established in other than a
track document (e.g. a BCP).  However,  since the rules to be overridden
were done in a standards-track document, I don't see how they an be
invalidated/overridden in anything other than a standards-track document.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Ben Campbell <> wrote:

> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: No Objection
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Out of curiosity, why isn't this material more appropriate as a BCP?