Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 25 March 2019 15:01 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 23C9D1203EF; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 sQiuQE4-0kmE; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (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 0668B1203C5; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id k21so6927785otf.1; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mJdtXjeRX75ze16B1h9cwd3CTjiHEpcHIJqVuQZy9J8=; b=V5W/Dsy1cMyDtRtGPz/zUBIv2sZ6aJVKeGrE2++YMfLSAFQE0aWuqcLMDjAm91p68I 9yXTXoKPJ7adTlSbZMAukXuoJywjbgqfi8h4RZNzOQFe41/8PImFU9gv0VPO+NEvqpaL X5b+oZjJVil3mINPsyctTnJ3FR0Z0Cg8DTJ2n7ekZVKSDtfJHjbYUR3f2JjnKkIrBjcb S+UF5vGRKhGIAXK4BIQiWVYhXhAjALi6T7WbNTb17YI+ECVcAoOKkHi15WwCC68vZso1 xNdhpXHnZbGIKP1Hd/U+dplNgORBidn66k61SnpfzzWQXq3C+qCKd5BWqUcua/r5Vi2Y H9pg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mJdtXjeRX75ze16B1h9cwd3CTjiHEpcHIJqVuQZy9J8=; b=n2nvGNXiJWhFeA0KLxkbICeBV8t3Z5EXIPF6hMfFgMpJoyAjzglm8Nz6vnblop5WRt 2UWUT8LvfUwLfjdk7pR3Z3uc6yslJrUEJukA9toLcoPTypGTHVplMetEAQKHAev8WBOd YLkhDIZFCCF9484AgTb+NtOD7dRsuYi5DQk0i//wtI2gx5k8G8EsVUSp3sUvIDzRU4VN NJOoe3ped2EyQpYkT+FuJDmqyV3ANJX5x43DOeDqlY1geJ4u6pv8BwvsSqU598EY3D4G NqapbeixVMUYYSjC/YlRHjtnu0lPAMHzBcT0GYO/5zFNTGRCadqpIH8VnDZxO9o6Eq7a VPuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXrFsvb7TJEJbCwevfZorz9VJHPycjCf2HC/lO9iHolF4yPx9xC v4NXJqB/h0cHmQRGYi9Z0SaalnId002kX0wDQoE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwIPeTRc3GPtAVLJRpY6XmXg9gtO7R+xd52pf6XXaxVAysBDAPzQ8sgOGY7sN2S9JRIhNoMfnOe9HLKVoHgbBU=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6646:: with SMTP id q6mr12923636otm.20.1553526072145; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155184411184.27685.16459405842977852294.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADaq8jcbtAy+RnCsxLBHpGfX7YOUCXbVU21DKKF5yOuXtwM4GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-c++YwyEONK=He55uX0GR+23bc1jrjjU5hxHB3ipJYwmg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-c++YwyEONK=He55uX0GR+23bc1jrjjU5hxHB3ipJYwmg@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:01:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jcA_TP5xrCy8VXBPRASA_o8rmxOpn+7PBnhH_1=2tHGEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ae03100584ec7984"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/W2R9v23pMtEtd9Kx5JGzXdRWoCw>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:01:16 -0000

> For this reason, I waited until I knew who the responsible AD for NFSv4
would be - "hi, Magnus" -
> and am now telling you folks know that my advice would be to produce a
-bis version of NFSv4.1,
> rather than trying to advance this draft.

I don't think those are the only options even though i realize that there
is no point in trying to advance the current draft    As I understand it,
an rfc5661bis would require a lot of work, particularly in the security
area and this would go beyond merely applying changes in the current draft
to the existing rfc5661.

I certainly could put the document into a bis-like form as you  suggest,
but I can't see the IESG approving the resulting Security Considerations
section as part of an rfc5661bis, given that it totally ignores the
requirements of RFC 3552.   The IESG approved rfc5661 with a defective
Security Considerations section but am doubtful about a possible repeat.

Another option would be to put the document in a more bis-like form by
producing a replacement for section 11 (instead of the current set of
updates to section 11), without totally replacing all of rfc5661.   I still
think that latter work is needed but producing a high-quality bis is a ways
away.

> I would suggest that you ask Benjamin whether he would be more
comfortable continuing discussion > of his ballot position of this material
in this form, or in -bis form

Instead, I'll ask hIm what form he'd like to base the discussion on,
whether in one of the forms suggested so far or in another one.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 9:58 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm putting this here, in Benjamin's Discuss ballot thread, but this is my
> suggestion for going forward on this draft. Magnus will be your AD starting
> Thursday morning, but if I might provide advice that I hope will be helpful
> ...
>
> If you take a look at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update/ballot/,
> you'll see that only 6 ADs cast ballot postions that are included in
> considering whether a draft is to be approved during IESG Evaluation (Yes,
> No Objection, or Discuss). That is barely half of the number of ballots
> needed to approve this draft for publication.
>
> Abstains and No Position ballots may have have useful comments, but they
> are ignored when counting ballots for approval.
>
> And my ballot expires on Wednesday, so clearing Benjamin's Discuss will
> leave you only half the way to getting this draft approved.
>
> As the ballot positions arrived, I began considering alternative ways
> forward. Some ADs Abstained, saying "I don't think it's reasonable for me
> to review a 100-page patch to a 600-page RFC", and that's a conversation
> that I was prepared to have with the IESG, but other ADs Abstained, saying
> "I tried, but I couldn't do it". In one case, Suresh, who is an experienced
> and conscientious reviewer, said he found instances where he couldn't
> identify changes between OLD and NEW blocks of text. So I decided I was
> willing to believe the "not reasonable to review" Abstain positions, as
> well as the "I tried and couldn't do it" Abstain positions.
>
> For this reason, I waited until I knew who the responsible AD for NFSv4
> would be - "hi, Magnus" - and am now telling you folks know that my advice
> would be to produce a -bis version of NFSv4.1, rather than trying to
> advance this draft.
>
> Magnus can accept my suggestion, or do something else, starting Thursday
> morning (he and I both try to act in your best interests, and we might not
> always agree on what that means). And you don't have to wait until Thursday
> morning to start talking with Magnus, and with each other.
>
> I would suggest that you ask Benjamin whether he would be more comfortable
> continuing discussion of his ballot position of this material in this form,
> or in -bis form.
>
> And I am truly sorry that you experienced this Late Surprise as I was
> stepping down.
>
> Best wishes with your work, and enjoy not having to include a last name
> initial every time you mention "Spencer" in NFSv4 e-mail!
>
> Spencer (D)
>