Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Tue, 29 August 2017 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A241200F3; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:55:18 -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 ZHj6-Z9Ge6mf; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4B8132055; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s187so16388239ywf.2; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:55:17 -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=XCB/Z0Y4+WkYvRBLMrNoD69tRTjK1/jrARfTB0QfzV4=; b=ZfyjqLrkKYFJ4GDngoUPx5Q0kqRKNRf07kpribbzJu/wZTgKddyGEQojsIVs7p8eUF ff2iftzAS7FyZdqVVdNWIaHUi22VyLdMZrCOZobOv74BZTvqYuKCAf0uCQW/ZrXPyria kVOf5ZJc3IIlUs6iykQTm/s6FIzwkafllSXjkWz5wDJbUFTTlIWP1jldu8F+Z5xf6Hr1 wED2Q1hG8NExzpbu9TJ0o0DiKBl8JHazNyezjRFzEFeXtUZ7xAAdAFt/UaGL4HiatWgN ye4XXM3zcbU3iBD1n2vz3lxe5bsu5Nn9QX2LHUt4LhI/ncw7kvtbuSQBn2f84Ld2T1XR 4Vtg==
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=XCB/Z0Y4+WkYvRBLMrNoD69tRTjK1/jrARfTB0QfzV4=; b=sXokiqzM2SfcZ2zb7WTs339NF54VJWgnJRsBg91QRSrIRl8l5NgCcT/LBcY/qWxvx7 2cXneEHKei1yRoTs79Am/Hx1aXS5Oq8PDXFyN+KAtysTiwxiupN7sCGaKM2GL5GtH8mj +saq5cEaE3RlQ/7jKlri2haxZWYw1s5Iw/9O6gvQLw8hvdQKONcvmK7rlhlmclhoX9LC 3gu4+F+XmVNToMAyjGdbSSbg1YHxK62QXRIwyyNFRZBgYMjpnxABcnGqC7gsr6GvbgAC 9m6a5XzbssofmNM+1GZFLzN3d4P4lUxZA6VtESaXD5vLAOBmURt+V5k2fzW2aEkpHhdU HMGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5h7G3Jkx035D2iPlmKQE3JgsIhYDf2qlv0jy8tZhh9tUAXpgmit SC9p77eYGPhqcuEkd1xdwupblBJuf5TD
X-Received: by with SMTP id 5mr241556ybz.66.1504011316226; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:55:15 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: David Noveck <>
Cc: spencer shepler <>, "" <>,, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ecc263df5f50557e3ecca"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter
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, 29 Aug 2017 12:55:19 -0000

Hi, David,

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Noveck <> wrote:

> > Any objection if I significantly reduce the paragraphs at the beginning
> of the Milestones section? I'd be happier if we didn't remind the IESG that
> NFSv4 has been working outside the charter and is now rechartering to
> reflect the current situation.
> No objection.
> > So, my understanding is that NFSv4 wants a revised charter to match the
> current work efforts already underway, but doesn't need to add additional
> milestones now, is that right?
> Yes, but we do need the option to add small milestones without another
> rechartering.  In other other words, while there is no problem withr
> reducing those paragraphs, there would  be a problem if they were reduced
> into non-existence.

Right. I'm thinking what's needed is just the very end:

"new milestones that fall within
the scope specified within the charter can be added to the list of
milestones below after working group consensus upon acceptance and
approval by the responsible Area Director"

I don't KNOW that this is necessary, because I think that's the way
charters work (you had consensus from the IETF for the *charter*, so adding
milestones for work that falls within the charter is up to the working
group and the AD who are actually doing the work), but you folks have way
more experience at discussions within NFSv4 about adding milestones than I
do, so I defer to your experience, and don't have any objection to the
charter making that explicit if you folks think it's helpful.

Spencer (D)