[nfsv4] Use of RFC 8174 in RFC-to-be draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-04
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 10:24 UTC
Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 ADAFF3A11EC; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 yhd2ZrdIgiVm; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20086.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA09D3A122A; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hi9qA6ukJJr+r/Hf/LPL4jIJAX/ryIH4QCHjg6qxHgJ8WcTyvTlsiFOVVH5TLy8RL0h8WjmNKsKYkI/Lw1E5yVm9y3W+b3hA+vcVIYDQib2HHpTZ8dkmL1JwST5eJpeFjdeHZNXTXYgWGhwIeY7cUXC/tbfEHOcrMXvWMrSYrRz0Zi3/S0WXFqu+Xy43oULYwA1LKbWjN/Embgwb69hvdTNFmvuqClw39Ob/Ug6IzDLiW92a9NRpGD7htYSOUvZQUEzuV1XLfnsSUyMPafFz1fu2XErrXNO9sUYRP9xGojoF/QY2A5nPXUopJLETDwYtKfVmBE2+G906Scfidrlq8g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tw/Ag7xuEjzUrUT7o6O2yE6R/bh83kxrOKorCU4sU64=; b=NGJvRY2u7udAY3cvimIpg7vmNyMwleg2TJSsqt8+9QyH7HWarL1jaPKubknQWFY33rb6gkD9zDcforalZGfqjuoKAgUd+8WcEs4/Ttm4Fu9rq7J1nnjmAzacQzVBlxoiK4+yCFNsWEo6VwcNiUvft8fFOG27eH3TGOXmpX7SxX1cKz4STmUd4kXI77Q1hsu7gYy4Ypzo4d9oQyNq+HuorP8a6lx56mVMavqoZ7THJzhYi9gkmyS+YBliKNnpMjViXOO7++FmgTmNZT6um4jfckwbJVfLiRKKlDknonfrgU4hTY708NgaJzbHX+19EfX/+bjctjUbXizcmE6x2OnZdw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tw/Ag7xuEjzUrUT7o6O2yE6R/bh83kxrOKorCU4sU64=; b=VF2pXid78qApQzJIXSrCLvtI7wWVfP1hPoOym/uMDb0+LaOLquQIGrYotOdUe6MJWgfF8fZ99FLsQY+97oghkGXozfBAapOOfVcnNrk2s2wbzrSlPOJa7+idC1ei8y8VJYDdI65p6KEzQRPNjSd67SxnIXWei5HkaRrE7mkQ4+Q=
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:7:8e::14) by HE1PR0701MB2889.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:57::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3239.9; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:24:10 +0000
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546c:3b3:9193:3351]) by HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546c:3b3:9193:3351%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3239.019; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:24:10 +0000
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
To: "draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Use of RFC 8174 in RFC-to-be draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-04
Thread-Index: AQHWZyS63QV3GTLuCkugCUGXmcy6TQ==
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:24:10 +0000
Message-ID: <22f396397ca072ad39b76555379ecdd4df73fc65.camel@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.2
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [98.128.243.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f3761d15-aa15-406d-b25b-08d8353bdd88
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2889:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR0701MB2889CB51360F1624CEC90847954E0@HE1PR0701MB2889.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: KXiEoxtDIgMx5hMQA3AU/scRD45RB8nXJTL5k2w/hlwRmhWwpr0XJSF1VOBeLBUOe025KJg3+JioOmgdlkJIy1MAs0g9gvPuyDDyZDelCulaOUGaYQBb3LjGpB960ftefCRa4aMath0q4gvE0e2bBScyttSue2PZU2yNh/OABlXxnZ1T49hRgBGeCVhleG8o5OZWGpgAmSSlrGGSkepxPYQBEnfXjLTdM8YZIMpxSuJOByZFRz0EfTtwYqYeABmLFKN2kbBOuAoMiZuhlkKI658bMDPwImzSV3IlM8CVAcKY8BLdoS6+jPH+ShDBwOAUCbTAuph6jSpD+jbByhy8hNCruc4ux3naK2kU+9TfRsQx6QHsSJ747NvQk6a6mIb9dgr8PGN23NpYUu/fuyxIOlpbsN/YyGSONAU/j86X35KNQBoKsZlytJPudMa/dQ/gAn+aUAWXku2Jmclmyn2RSQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(346002)(136003)(376002)(66616009)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(2616005)(83380400001)(6512007)(8936002)(76116006)(66446008)(99936003)(26005)(186003)(478600001)(6486002)(316002)(5660300002)(86362001)(2906002)(8676002)(110136005)(36756003)(450100002)(44832011)(71200400001)(6506007)(99106002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_22f396397ca072ad39b76555379ecdd4df73fc65camelericssonco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f3761d15-aa15-406d-b25b-08d8353bdd88
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Jul 2020 10:24:10.7332 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Cfyj8U8wkmpk6dD4uYV95KsqVCDn96PSCOsiUWi/vmMmrbNeO6VRTwIw0gclx23+YWJrFxAJE1PdRT9OoLwjU6qw9FB6ZCf4a61BA4drzMI=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2889
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/Q0XrxCWWch_xQFYuxRRFDGjprbk>
Subject: [nfsv4] Use of RFC 8174 in RFC-to-be draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-04
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: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:24:31 -0000
WG and Authors, The RFC-editor asked in the AUTH48 of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-04 if the use of RFC 2119 language template should be updated to the one that includes RFC 8174 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8174/). In other words changing Section 1.3 from: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. To: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. David and I have opposite views here. So attached are a file with all lines from -04 that contains a lower case RFC 2119 term. There are 1493 occurrences in the file. My current position is that this should not be changed. My main reason is that the document using the RFC 2119 terms and definition was how it went through the consensus and approval process. Based on the large number of occurrences of the terms that needs to be determined if any of these really should be capatilized if the RFC 8174 definition is applied. I will provide what I think is a strong example of why such investigation would need to be done and considered. If the client requests OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WANT_WRITE_DELEG without OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WANT_READ_DELEG on an object with one of the aforementioned file types, the server must set wdr_resok4.od_whynone.ond_why to WND4_WRITE_DELEG_NOT_SUPP_FTYPE. I think that matches the 2119 definition of MUST: 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. Lets also review Section 6 of RFC 2119: Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability. What would happen if one did not follow the MUST in the above sentence? I assume interoperability issues or protocol failures. I just picked a sentence that appeared to have potentially implications if they are not followed for the protocol operation. The point I am trying to make is that if we go with RFC8174 the WG would be forced to review all these 1493 occurrences and decided if they really all are lower case or if actually some of them should be promoted to upper case. Then we have the next issue, which is me as responsible AD having to judge if the result of this change still represent what was approved by the IESG and has IETF consensus for publication. Currently I do significantly struggle with making such a determination, or if I think the document would need to go back and redo the WG, and IETF last call. The document as it stands using RFC 2119 have established consensus. So I argue for the path of least resistance by not changing here to get these updates published. Updating to RFC 8174 is definitely the proper bis version should do. But by doing that early as all the other changes are folded in the WG will have time to consider the usage and maybe also use a writing style that avoids using the lower case version of the RFC2119 terms. This is my view and you should not jump in on this until David have had a chance to provide his view, but although I understand his high level reasoning, he hasn't seen my arguments for my position either. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- [nfsv4] Use of RFC 8174 in RFC-to-be draft-ietf-n… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [nfsv4] Use of RFC 8174 in RFC-to-be draft-ie… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Use of RFC 8174 in RFC-to-be draft-ie… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [nfsv4] Use of RFC 8174 in RFC-to-be draft-ie… Tom Talpey