Re: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 30 Aug 2016, at 13:28, Adamson, Andy wrote:

>> On Aug 30, 2016, at 2:11 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: 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 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I am a little bit confused about the purpose of this draft.
>> My confusion
>> is probably related to Brian's Gen-ART comments.
>
> OK - did you read the response? I case you have not, here is portion 
> of the response that addresses the SP vrs BCP concern.
>
> —————
> This latest round of comments - including the SecDir review from Russ 
> Housley shows that there is still an impedence mis-match between the 
> title/abstract and the intended status of Standards Track versus an 
> Informational draft or best practices.
>
> I feel that the use of "Guidelines" in the title, and "guidance" in 
> the abstract point to an Informational draft rather than a Standards 
> track.
>
> This draft is a Proposed Standard (not an Informational or BCP) 
> because the MUST and REQUIRED noted in section 6 of the doc are 
> absolute requirements for an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space to 
> work. These can not be BCP as an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space 
> will _not_ work without these requirements.
>
> I have completed a draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10 with the 
> following changes:
>
> 1) The title to be changed from
>
> "Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Guidelines"
>
> to
>
> "Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Requirements"
>
>
> 2) The first sentence in the abstract (and in the introduction) to be 
> changed from
>
>   This document provides guidance on the deployment of the NFSv4
>   protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
>   environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains.
>
> to
>   This document presents requirements on the deployment of the NFSv4
>   protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
>   environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains.
>
> —————
>
> to which Brian responded:
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2016, at 7:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for version -10. I appreciate the clarification to the title 
> etc.
>
> (All the same, a BCP is just as mandatory as a Draft Standard. But 
> it's
> a judgment call, of course.)
>
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter

I read that, but it didn't answer my question about _what_ the 
requirements applied to. But you address it below...


>>
>> Specifically, who/what do the normative requirements in section 6 
>> apply
>> to. Are these implementation requirements or deployment requirements?
>
> They are deployment requirements - which I feel is very clear.

To put a finer point on it, do you think an implementer can write the 
code for a multi-domain nfsv4 service without reading this document? For 
example, are the identifier mapping requirements strictly deployment 
issues without impact on the code?

>
>> If
>> the former, should this update any of the nfsv4 RFCs?
>
> The NFSv4 WG has decided to not update the 600+ page NFSv4 RFCs for 
> issues such as this.

Just to be clear, I did not suggest a revision of those RFCs. Just an 
"Updates" header on this one. (But whether it matters depends on the 
previous question.)

>
>> If deployment, then
>> I also wonder why this is PS and not BCP.
>
> Because the AD made the judgment call and has decided to make it a PS 
> which is his choice.  I stated my opinion which is PS, and if the AD 
> wants to make this a BCP, OK.
>

Sure. These were non-binding comments.

Ben.