Re: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls WGLC is now closed

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 16, 2019, at 10:56 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 2:59 PM Chuck Lever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 2:52 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:21 PM Chuck Lever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Hi-
>> 
>> Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls closed on Friday Dec 13.
>> I request that the Datatracker recognize completion of Last Call.
>> 
>> I'll do that within the next few days, once we have responses from everyone whose
>> comments were incorporated.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks to all who read through the document and posted comments. I've collected
>> the comments in an updated draft. Here is a diff with rpc-tls-04:
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt&url2=https://chucklever.github.io/i-d-rpc-tls/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt&url2=https://chucklever.github.io/i-d-rpc-tls/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt>
>> 
>> David, Tom, could you review these changes and let me know if I've understood
>> and correctly applied your comments?
>> 
>> Tigran, addressing Tom's comments necessitated a change in Section 5.1.1 to
>> language that you requested. Please review the changes and let me know if there
>> is a problem with the new text.
>> 
>> I'm willing to wait until year's end for late comments. 
>> 
>> I'm not.   I assume the people who commented can, within a few days, let us
>> know whether the document is ready to go
>> . 
>> If you have anything to
>> add, please don't hesitate to speak up.
>> 
>> That's very nice of you but I'm not sure how to accommodate late comments once 
>> WGLC is officially over, especially if I declare document consensus.
> 
> So that's not how it worked for cm-pvt-data. Tom's comments didn't arrive until after WGLC closed, 
> 
> Cm-pvt data was a different situation.  WGLC was over, consensus had been decided and the document is  now in AD review.
> 
> and I was told that there are typically comments that arrive late. 
> 
> There sometimes are.
> 
> Was I misled?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> I don't think you can declare a consensus until I provide a fresh revision that addresses WGLC comments.
> 
> My understanding was that you had done that.  Also. I thought that by asking me to record the last call as being over you were asking me either to declare consensus or no consensus yet.

OK. My confusion, sorry.

I have not yet provided a final revision because I'm requesting that the reviewers check my changes. Once everyone has replied and the dust settles, I will submit a fresh revision, and ask that you make a consensus declaration.


> Not trying to start a fight, 
> 
> There is no fight but there is a disagreement/misunderstanding that we need to resolve.
> 
> but I thought I was doing the right thing here..
> 
> Yes but. I'm still not clear what you want to do here.  Should we put off the end of WGLC until 12/31?
> 
> 
>> I don't see a need to effectively put off the end of WGLC until 12/31.
>> 
>> If people have small edirotial nits, you can incorporate them during  IESG consideration.
>> 
>> If someone comes up with a stop-the-presses comment, they can raise the issue during IETF 
>> last call :-(, but I don't expect that to happen.
>>    
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
> 
> --
> Chuck Lever

--
Chuck Lever