[nfsv4] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-nfsv4-05-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-nfsv4-05-00: Block

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.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nfsv4/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- "The working group is also responsible for approving changes to RPC- and
NFS-related IANA registries." I frown up the "approving" word. It sounds like
we change the IANA process here. Also, it seems like this sentence covers a
series of registries https://www.iana.org/protocols#index_N

Network File System version 4 (NFSv4)

NFSv4 ${ietf.org:CPU_ARCH} Value Registry       RFC 5661
First Come First Served
NFSv4 ${ietf.org:OS_TYPE} Value Registry        RFC 5661
First Come First Served
NFSv4 Device ID Notifications Registry  RFC 5661
Standards Action with Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler)
NFSv4 Named Attribute Definitions Registry      RFC 5661, RFC 7530
Specification Required for new registrations; updates to fields other than the
contact field require Expert Review or IESG Approval (Expert: Spencer Shepler)
NFSv4 Path Variables Registry   RFC 5661 ietf.org domain: Standards Action with
Expert Review. non-ietf.org. domain: First Come First Served. (Expert: Spencer
Shepler) NFSv4 Recallable Object Types Registry  RFC 5661 Standards Action with
Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler) pNFS Layout Types Registry      RFC 5661

So we have a mix of FCFS and Standard Action with Expert Review.
If the charter says that the WG is now responsible, what does it imply? For ex,
in terms of FCFS? What do you expect from the WG in the different situations?
Feedback? Approval? (what if the WG disagrees with the expert), Standards
Action Review? Standards Action with Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------



- What are we balloting on?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nfsv4/ballot/ shows two different
pieces of information 1. Ready w/o external review (05-00) 2. Ballot question:
"Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval
without external review?" Is this a tooling issue?

- "The NFSv4 working group is chartered with vetting reported issues and
determining correctness of submitted errata." I like that approach of not only
having the area responsible for evaluating errata.

- Like in the current NFSV4 charter, you should break down the proposed
milestones in "WG Last Call" and "Submit Final" and add the intended status

- Editorial

In addition, some areas may need more concentrated work to correct the
specifications already published, to deal with unanticipated interactions
between features, or to respond to evolving IESG expectations with regard
to areas such as security.

Could we remove "IESG"? While the IESG provides guidance and sometimes enforces
rules, we should stress that the IETF is a community-based effort, as opposed
to IESG-driven effort.