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

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:41 AM, spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:13 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >  but changing the IANA registry procedure to insert the working group wasn't something I saw being proposed during recharter discussion
>> 
>> I agree.  I was under the impression that Chuck, when he proposed this text, believed,he was merely restating explicitly what was already in effect.  While it is true that, formally speaking, the working group as such, has no role in this process, as a practical matter, the working group will be consulted.  For example, when Spencer S is the designated expert, the normal expectation would be that he would consult the working group regarding anything that was not straightforward.
>> 
>> I think that if anyone thought that a change in the IANA registry procedure was being proposed, they would have pointed that out and discussed the matter.  After all, there have been no problems with the existing procedure.  The working group is consulted when necessary.
> 
> Correct.  A change in IANA behavior/procedure was not the intent.
>  
>> 
>> > So, we'll do the right thing (and hold onto your BLOCK position until we figure out what that is).
>> 
>> I think it would be best to simply delete  "The working group is also responsible for approving changes to RPC- and
>> NFS-related IANA registries.".  I'd like to be sure that both Chuck and Spencer S aare OK with that.
> 
> Agreed with as proposed.
> 
> Chuck?

No objection to removing the offending sentence.

> Spencer
>  
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, Benoit,
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> 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)
>>> 
>>> Well, that's awkward.
>>> 
>>> I'll let Spencer (S) and the working group participants copied on this ballot e-mail take a look at this before proposing a fix, but changing the IANA registry procedure to insert the working group wasn't something I saw being proposed during recharter discussion
>>> 
>>> So, we'll do the right thing (and hold onto your BLOCK position until we figure out what that is).
>>> 
>>> Spencer
>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> It's at least an issue with the AD who sent out the ballot text ...
>>> 
>>> Transport guys have decades of experience getting confused about whether one signal means either of two things, whether that's "does loss mean packet congestion or packet corruption?" or, in this case, "if I think the charter is ready but don't agree with the ballot question about external review, do I ballot BLOCK or Yes/No Objection?"
>>> 
>>> Of course, most ADs at least delete one of the choices before opening the ballot ...
>>>  
>>>> - "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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4