Re: [nfsv4] WG adoption of draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Chairs, please response to David's request and share your views.

//Zahed

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:53 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Although Gmail thinks that this a reply, it is actually a follow-up for my
> request sent on 12/20/2023. So there is no issue of me replying to myself
> and no issue of multiple personality syndrome to worry about :-)
>
> I had originally hoped that the three weeks to the next wg interim meeting
> would give us time to complete a two-week comment period and allow us to
> resolve this long-deferred matter at the 1/16 interim meeting.  Given the
> time that has already elapsed, that no longer seems possible. Sigh!
>
> I have received no updates regarding this request.  If there are
> impediments that would delay prompt work on this request, I need whoever is
> dealing with this request to let me know about the issue so that it can get
> addressed.
>
> If that is not possible, we will have to address the matter at the 1/16
> interim meeting.  Given what happened with the original request to adopt
> -06, I don't think that we can again simply wait passively and hope that
> one of the chairs is taking care of this matter.  It makes more sense for
> me and whichever chair takes responsibility for this to discuss the next
> steps at this and subsequent interim meetings, allowing us  to make sure we
> have process  that leads to a prompt resolution of this matter.
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 5:23 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I would like to formally request that the working group adopt this
>> document, currently at its -07 draft, as a working group document.
>>
>> I suggest that the working group be asked for its comments as soon as
>> possible. Given that the next interim meeting is scheduled for 1/16, this
>> should allow a two-week period for comments  plus time to summarise the
>> results and present a decision at the interim meeting.  This will give us
>> an opportunity to formulate a plan of action, whatever the decision is.  I
>> don't think we can afford a repeat of the situation with the previous
>> adoption call in which there was uncertainty about the precise contours of
>> the working group's response and a consequent delay as the draft whose
>> adoption was request ceased to be relevant.
>>
>> One important point regarding the adoption call is that we need to
>> clearly distinguish issues with the precise contents of the draft, which
>> could be addressed after adoption from feelings, if they exist,, that the
>> current draft is not a suitable vehicle in its current form , for the
>> working group to address  NFSv4 security issues.  If the latter, we need to
>> understand what changes might be required, so those changes cab made,
>> allowing the working group to continue to make progress.
>>
>