Re: [nfsv4] Comments on minutes of wg meeting at IETF114

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

> On 13 Sep 2022, at 14:29, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Because of the importance of security, we cannot simply wait for such resources to drop into our laps.,
> 
> I fear these minutes do not capture the entire discussion.
> 
> That's not surprising.
> 
> Is there a video recording of the session available?
> 
> I don't know.  Brian?  Zahed?

I saw Lars already replied.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> > Zahed questions whether we had an adoption call for the BIS document?
>> 
>> I guess not.   The issue is complicated by current plans for document split-up.
> 
> We haven’t had any deep public discussion of the scope of each the replacement documents.
> 
> True.  I proposed a possible split to address Zahed's concerns about the size of RFCs 5661 and 8881.
> 
> Given how labor-intensive it is to split up
> the bis given inter-document references,
> I think it is time to reconsider this.
> 
> This is really up to Zahed but I'd like to hear opinions from the rest of the working group.

I would rather ask the working group to make the decision. what I am up to is that we follow the process and make progresses.  

> 
> They have grown to encompass quite a bit more than what was in RFC 5661
> 
> Could you be more specific?
> 
> . I would feel more comfortable if the WG could agree on a limited scope for each of these to prevent scope creep from making them impossible to complete.
> 
> Let's leave aside the splits not yet done.  The scope of rfc5661bis is limited to rfc8881 plus rfc8434.
> 
> 
> The idea that we are addressing every errata against RFC 5661 with the bis effort is new to me.
> 
> That's surprising to me.  I think that if you are doing a bis and leave errata unaddressed, you are not doing your job:
> For accepted editorial errata reports, it would be insane not to incorporate the correct version and stick with the erroneous text.
> For held-over errata reports, the bis is the only opportunity to fix a reported (and acknowledged) error.
> For rejected errata reports, if there is a wg consensus for change they have to be fixed in the bis.
> 
> IIRC, there was a lot of discussion on the list in which I reassured Trond that his errata reports, even though formally rejected, would be addressed in the bis.
> 
> >  I know we had some vague plans to address some of them, 
> 
> I had vague plans to address all of them and work on those plans is ongoing. I need to focus on doing the rest without detailed plans.

I would like us to spent some time to address the erratas (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=2&area_acronym=tsv&wg_acronym=nfsv4&presentation=table <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=2&area_acronym=tsv&wg_acronym=nfsv4&presentation=table> ), if the plan is to work on them in the bis then we should change the state to  “Hold for document update”. In general, I would like us to look at the reported erratas and change them to appropriate state.   Note that if we don’t verify the errata then they don't appear on the RFC’s.  

> 
> > and I had proposed keeping track of these with the github issue tracker. However, github has not been adopted for any of these documents, 
> 
> Maybe we can do that after these are adopted as working group documents. I will need your help.

Dealing issues in Github, sounds good to me. 

//Zahed