Re: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> And I just got a "draft approved for publication"
> email yesterday so I was kinda surprised there's still time.

It can take a while to get from approval for publication to AUTH48, which
always
takes longer than 48 hours.

With 8178, I was pretty lucky in that in that it took only five weeks.

8154 took over five months.

> Clearly I don't understand how this works.

You are not alone.  Just because there will be a delay does not mean you
are free
to make changes, even well-justified ones, at any time in that period.  It
is best to
co-ordinate with the Spencers.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:45 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:46:41PM +0000, Thomas Haynes wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 24, 2017, at 1:36 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >> FYI, I agree with the request - every NFS RFC should be able to
> >> produce valid XDR.
> >>
> >> While we're at it it would be great if we had a way to merge the XDR
> >> sniplets from the various RFCs so that we can have an official
> >> combined XDR that we know is valid and can be used as starting point
> >> for implementations.
> >
> >
> > I did this earlier this week:
> > https://github.com/loghyr/nfsv42_xdr
>
> Thanks!
>
> I think Christoph was looking for something automatic, though?  Like a
> script you could feed RFC URLs to and have it spit out an XDR file.
>
> I guess it could be nice, I'm just afraid it may take me a few days to
> get around to it.  And I just got a "draft approved for publication"
> email yesterday so I was kinda surprised there's still time.  Clearly I
> don't understand how this works.
>
> --b.
>