Re: [nfsv4] WG Last Call for Extension and Minor Versions, Extended Attributes, and ACLs / Umask - Ends Dec 2nd 2016

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Thu, 08 December 2016 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.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 CACF012948C for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:51:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 B6aqPAvyIELC for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x241.google.com (mail-oi0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F9E129594 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x241.google.com with SMTP id v84so51556494oie.2 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 13:51:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=34IZC2zfBeRk8jAOVI6cIs4s+6P8U2XKVPq6aBXPlpE=; b=c2dakH9D56lTaz0QbEWvMaKOWv/M8UWxN69zyl2DRzlQPJqc9/krX/+yWcGi601s29 W9NqlaBylDN6zV/18m9mBl5S3WEuQsyQfnIDUssCApIvCKO1wVMJnjnI5L15HTE6BtNY g/qwjRIsxlPyFMZS1mKz+l7Jac9ur6XdemZHxVq+pD8gHtgd/p6Ka93eNepTk45yrfKc Y3l2w8OR3q56u61gjlB1zOR6xEcARA2vHl+5p6c2uKHVUh0HDLzE65ZHLAqlaFgygVWR qTZPahrExWPPycBIHSkINoKdgVMzXoUyFw8Vy74FdHNQpkBNuR7OohtnG/Hc6yaWY9c/ ZMJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=34IZC2zfBeRk8jAOVI6cIs4s+6P8U2XKVPq6aBXPlpE=; b=MD4ovoZcnObnr8HbfsxV8hGSR6Z0qb6Lk9nx45zsgAR10tdBLPHVmzNQi5+nVQntEi b2yYgTwllJa8OjpHY4wqboI69Sp3o580x5Vdg+2kgCAw5BkC1yBig6ag3ELBqPGzZ6IP GiOIQuHMvZ49VMQME6xPXfvSMtvNgK0UpoHBK6Jw8+NVkgR5WUGeQ2zJZNpFvN70Hk1u 0fQbaVtMQCMtV2KkAR2/lK1nV1uUP2CQkb2SpSNvYpeUniHu78JMOucu+WtLP90g+XOh YWmPJ8pyTOedZKLpQrz2vHmnBTdxhOTX5tKuSch1Wlz6FVJrb7S9TXbUs9q/tgLzDT1y jkGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01KhqWepa9DXE5a6OyzXZp7z6v778UutOCqMnR5/lfl276uxLvw9sLXe0pTH8lT3Fs74ptuqEd4ADLg5Q==
X-Received: by 10.202.190.137 with SMTP id o131mr39785076oif.14.1481233902096; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 13:51:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.137.202 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:51:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20161208202952.GB26583@fieldses.org>
References: <MWHPR03MB28935C4A8AF5FCDB34B37EA6C7B80@MWHPR03MB2893.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR03MB289323FB62D892F442482D9CC7830@MWHPR03MB2893.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CADaq8jewDSJZ7p3Kbjg43z0yhSWf20HcB+e+qgY35h0YavgryA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6BakDsGoo56KQPV-UGcCsPd=pUzrmy+j1DkGmy-6ryrDTbg@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jd42_UThHThuO-co5VSrU1go=QPiEXhu=rAdx6h2SSHYg@mail.gmail.com> <20161208202952.GB26583@fieldses.org>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:51:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8je-pL0yGUvzL2r7wjSWXeWZBf3DgF5APMDKQpD2ejY16Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dc3dc90561605432ca47e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/T88Z3Ei9Sk1fo8WqS6iP18DNJms>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] WG Last Call for Extension and Minor Versions, Extended Attributes, and ACLs / Umask - Ends Dec 2nd 2016
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 21:51:45 -0000

> Are there other examples of RFC's referencing man pages?

I don't think so but I don't think there are RFC's referencing withdrawn
POSIX drafts either. Sigh!

> I guess for now I'll keep the existing reference and move it to
> an "informative references" section.

I think you need a place to find this document such as a URL.  That's what
a reference is for, after all.  I know this sort of stuff can be
aggravating but I think you are better off getting this out of the way now,
rather during IESG review.



On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:29 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 06:49:38AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> > > Even though David responded, the question is for the document
> > > authors.
> >
> > Right but I thought it might be helpful to discuss the possible choices
> > before they decide to pick one.
> >
> > > My apologies for being opaque about "stable reference".
> >
> > I don't think you were "opaque".  The problem is that there is a level of
> > uncertainty about exactly how stable the reference needs to be, and no
> > matter what we choose, the answer might be different when the IESG (and
> > various assorted reviewers) consider the matter.
> >
> > > The  POSIX-1003.1e normative reference makes it appear that it
> > > is a Posix standards document while in the content of the
> > > reference it does state "withdrawn" - confusing.
> >
> > I referenced this issue in my review but I wasn't clear about why this
> was
> > a problem.  I just asked how it could be normative, which may not have
> been
> > helpful in correcting the problem.  Your formulation is clearer.
> >
> > > The other problem is that I cannot quickly locate a copy of that
> > > document
> >
> > I could quickly locate a copy.  Unfortunately I can also quickly find a
> > bunch of advertised links to that document, which are broken :-(
> >
> > > and if it is going to be a normative reference then it needs
> > > to be reasonably available.
> >
> > That implies it wouldn't have to if it is an informative reference.  I
> > suspect that there will be some concern about this issue during the
> review
> > process, even for an informative reference.
> >
> > > I understand that it is a defacto standard at this point given the
> > > implementation.
> >
> > I don't think the IESG would be very receptive to the idea of "De facto
> > Standard References" section :-(
> >
> > > My main point is that if it is going to be a reference a target needs
> > > to exist and the naming should likely be changed to remove the
> > > implication that it is a Posix standard.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > > As mentioned, if the reference is not needed based on the
> > > contents of the I-D, then the I-D can be reworded and references >
> > removed or changed.
> >
> > I still think the acl man page would be a good target for an informative
> > reference but the authors need to decide what they want to do about this
> > issue.
>
> I don't care much, I think either could work.  Are there other examples
> of RFC's referencing man pages?
>
> I guess for now I'll keep the existing reference and move it to an
> "informative references" section.
>
> --b.
>