[nfsv4] Re: New Version Notification for draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

I will put this into the draft renewing this document.

We would need the WG to review the changes in the enum values. The change
in names is OK with me.

On Sunday, May 18, 2025, Pali Rohár <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello David, I would like to ask, could you inline errata 7669 into the
> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis document? Errata is reported on:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7669
>
> I see that first errata https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7667 was
> already included but second one eid7669 not yet.
>
> Zahed, could you look at those two errata and verify them if you are
> allowed?
>
> On Saturday 02 November 2024 11:56:53 David Noveck wrote:
> > I'm not allowed to do that.  See the errata verification login page for
> a
> > list of those who can (e.g. IESG members, etc.).  I expect Zahed is
> allowed
> > to do that, if he is so inclined.
> >
> > I can include these changes in the next draft of
> > draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis or the first draft of
> > draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5662bis if the chairs finally follow through on the
> > adoption call for that document.
> >
> > I take it that there are no objections to your proposed changes.  Not
> sure
> > where the official verification process is right now but it is basically
> > unreliable since mail is often sent to outdated email addresses and
> > never followed up on.   Since there is a bis document  in process, the
> > important thing is what that new document says and it might not be worth
> > anyone's time to deal with the intricacies of the errata process for
> these
> > needed changes.  Once we reach WGLC for that document, the consensus
> > decision to publish addresses the document correction and it will not
> > matter whether the report is verified, held, or rejected.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 7:48 PM Pali Rohár <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, would you be able to verify those two erratas eid7667 and
> eid7669?
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 18 September 2024 09:58:25 David Noveck wrote:
> > > > I will submit -05, with those fixes, as soon as the author tools are
> > > > working again.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 9:38 AM Pali Rohár <
> [e-mail]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok, thanks for this! The still unaddressed are eid7667 and eid7669
> as
> > > of
> > > > > the last rfc5662bis-04 draft.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday 18 September 2024 08:35:01 David Noveck wrote:
> > > > > > 7386 is addressed in rfc5661bis-08.   I don't know of any
> unaddressed
> > > > > > errata reports.for this set of documents,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 12:16 PM Pali Rohár <
> > > [e-mail]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello and thank you for information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm looking at it again, as I sent list of erratas in my first
> > > email
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/
> 05tLPoZl1Jh8VmUaY_nFRAmAMeA/
> > > > > > > and two of erratas eid7667 and eid7669 are for RFC 5662, the
> > > document
> > > > > > > which you are updating in this thread (XDR definitions). And
> > > another
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > is eid7386 which is for RFC 8881 (spec itself) which you
> referred
> > > in
> > > > > > > other email thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that in this rfc5662bis document you can handle only
> > > eid7667
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > eid7669. The last one needs to go via other rfc5661/rfc8881-bis
> > > > > document
> > > > > > > update.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pali
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Friday 06 September 2024 04:02:47 David Noveck wrote:
> > > > > > > > The formal status of these is "Reported" which really means
> they
> > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > > been reviewed yet.  Normally, the review process is
> triggered by
> > > an
> > > > > email
> > > > > > > > sent to the authors.  In thjs case, two of the authors are no
> > > longer
> > > > > > > active
> > > > > > > > in the IETF but since I am, there might have been an email
> sent
> > > to my
> > > > > > > > netapp email.  I will look but if I  missed it a year ago,
> it us
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > not recoverable now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There should be a way to kick off the review process without
> the
> > > > > email
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure one exists.  I will send mail to ietf-action to
> see.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 6:03 PM Pali Rohár <
> > > > > [e-mail]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Thank you for reply and looking at it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, what is the format status of those erratas?
> > > > > > > > > I have reported year ago but they have not been reviewed
> yet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pali
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday 05 September 2024 13:44:24 David Noveck wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Will include these in -05.  Should be out next week.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 1:30 PM David Noveck <
> > > [e-mail]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I'll take a look.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 12:28 PM Pali Rohár <
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Hello David, could you look at errata reports which I
> > > sent for
> > > > > > > > > RFC5662?
> > > > > > > > > > >> It would be nice to review them and incorporate fixed
> into
> > > > > new bis
> > > > > > > > > > >> document.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Pali
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thursday 05 September 2024 12:09:32 David Noveck
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > IIRC, an earlier version of this draft was supposed
> to
> > > be
> > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > adoption call process, starting "at or before"
> > > IETF120.  If
> > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > >> some
> > > > > > > > > > >> > reason/issue explaining why it has not been
> adopted, I
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >> > explanation of that so that I can address whatever
> > > issues
> > > > > exist,
> > > > > > > > > > >> allowing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > us to make progress on the respecification effort.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > This case is much better than that for the security
> > > > > document,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > >> > lingered in the adoption-requested-but-no-response
> > > state for
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > >> > years, but we need to avoid a repetition of that
> > > > > situation,  I
> > > > > > > > > think the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > chairs need to follow up on all the documents for
> which
> > > > > > > adoption has
> > > > > > > > > > >> been
> > > > > > > > > > >> > requested, in a reasonable time, which has not been
> the
> > > > > case.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > > > > > > > >> > From: <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:49 AM
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > > > > > > > > > >> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > > > > > > > > > >> > To: David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > A new version of Internet-Draft
> > > > > > > > > draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > > > > > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > > > > > >> > been
> > > > > > > > > > >> > successfully submitted by David Noveck and posted
> to the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > IETF repository.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Name:     draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Revision: 04
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Title:    Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
> > > Version
> > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > > External
> > > > > > > > > > >> Data
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Representation Standard (XDR) Description
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Date:     2024-09-05
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Group:    Individual Submission
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Pages:    79
> > > > > > > > > > >> > URL:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-
> rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Status:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis/
> > > > > > > > > > >> > HTMLized:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-
> rfc5662bis
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Diff:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dnoveck-
> nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Abstract:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >    This document provides the External Data
> > > Representation
> > > > > > > Standard
> > > > > > > > > > >> >    (XDR) description for Network File System
> version 4
> > > > > (NFSv4)
> > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > > >> >    version 1.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >    It includes protocol extensions made as part of
> > > > > > > respecification
> > > > > > > > > > >> >    effort for minor version 1.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >    It obsoletes and replaces RFC5662.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > The IETF Secretariat
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>