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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

I think there are some potential to this idea. However, as I have not attempted to read the document, I would request that you comment on what to do with the other sections, for example those changes to the several section 15.1 changes. Will it work out to have those changes to be included in a larger chunks also?

Cheers

Magnus

On 2019-03-25 16:01, David Noveck wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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)


--

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------