Re: [nfsv4] WG adoption of draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the update, David!!

It is great to see we have some action plans here.

//Zahed

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:45 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> As there was no response to this request from the chairs, let me provide
> an update.  If the chairs have some relevant input, they can add it.
>
> Chris did not provide an update. and expressed no views about the
> situation.   I drew the conclusion that he is not involved in this and is
> assuming Brian is taking care of it.
>
> Brian and I spoke during the official meeting time, but, since there were
> no other attendees, we had the opportunity to clarify some matters related
> to this issue.
>
>    - Brian told me matters had been delayed by his illness (covid-19).
>    - We discussed the pending documents and agreed to have a more
>    detailed discussion later.
>
>  At that later meeting, held on 1/19:
>
>    - I reiterated the original request for an adoption call (originally
>    made 12/20/2023) and Brian agreed to follow up.
>    - We clarified the need for Bran to send the WG a proposed list of
>    consensus items, taken from Appendix B of *draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-07.
>    *There had previously been confusion about this with Brian looking at
>    Appendix C of *draft-ietf-nfsv4-rvc5661bis *and not finding those
>    item.  I referred him to the correct appndix and stressed that the current
>    focus needed to be on the security document, given that the original
>    request for an adoptional call, made in 2022 jad been lost track of.
>
> I expect Brian to  notify the WG about the adoption call in the next few
> days.  Once that is done, I would be able to  send out an almost complete
> draft of the ACL implementation report for ONTAP that I have been working
> on and possibly make it an agenda item, together with Brian's list of
> consensus items to discuss, for the next interim meeting on 1/30.
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 9:56 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Chairs, please response to David's request and share your views.
>>
>> //Zahed
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:53 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Although Gmail thinks that this a reply, it is actually a follow-up for
>>> my request sent on 12/20/2023. So there is no issue of me replying to
>>> myself and no issue of multiple personality syndrome to worry about :-)
>>>
>>> I had originally hoped that the three weeks to the next wg interim
>>> meeting would give us time to complete a two-week comment period and allow
>>> us to resolve this long-deferred matter at the 1/16 interim meeting.  Given
>>> the time that has already elapsed, that no longer seems possible. Sigh!
>>>
>>> I have received no updates regarding this request.  If there are
>>> impediments that would delay prompt work on this request, I need whoever is
>>> dealing with this request to let me know about the issue so that it can get
>>> addressed.
>>>
>>> If that is not possible, we will have to address the matter at the 1/16
>>> interim meeting.  Given what happened with the original request to adopt
>>> -06, I don't think that we can again simply wait passively and hope that
>>> one of the chairs is taking care of this matter.  It makes more sense for
>>> me and whichever chair takes responsibility for this to discuss the next
>>> steps at this and subsequent interim meetings, allowing us  to make sure we
>>> have process  that leads to a prompt resolution of this matter.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 5:23 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to formally request that the working group adopt this
>>>> document, currently at its -07 draft, as a working group document.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that the working group be asked for its comments as soon as
>>>> possible. Given that the next interim meeting is scheduled for 1/16, this
>>>> should allow a two-week period for comments  plus time to summarise the
>>>> results and present a decision at the interim meeting.  This will give us
>>>> an opportunity to formulate a plan of action, whatever the decision is.  I
>>>> don't think we can afford a repeat of the situation with the previous
>>>> adoption call in which there was uncertainty about the precise contours of
>>>> the working group's response and a consequent delay as the draft whose
>>>> adoption was request ceased to be relevant.
>>>>
>>>> One important point regarding the adoption call is that we need to
>>>> clearly distinguish issues with the precise contents of the draft, which
>>>> could be addressed after adoption from feelings, if they exist,, that the
>>>> current draft is not a suitable vehicle in its current form , for the
>>>> working group to address  NFSv4 security issues.  If the latter, we need to
>>>> understand what changes might be required, so those changes cab made,
>>>> allowing the working group to continue to make progress.
>>>>
>>>