Re: [nfsv4] Working Group last call for NFSv4.1 - ending September 23rd

[spencer shepler <[e-mail]>]

Let's change the discussion then to how would the working group like to
move forward with errata review and its timeline.

So, suggestion of a plan?

Spencer


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:21 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > The errata should be reviewed in this time frame
>
> They certainly should be reviewed but it is not clear to me why they would
> need to be reviewed by 9/23.   That would make sense if the document dealt
> with these erratta, but since it does not, as Chuck explained, I don't see
> the point of giving the working group two items to review at the same time:
> this document and the errata that you have cited.
>
> > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
> part of this document's review
>
> I don't think that makes sense.  If the working group is given two things
> to do as part of the same revIew, it make it likely that neither will be
> done well.
>
> > and potential updated content for this document.
>
> I think the woorking group has decided that those potential updates will
> not be realized, except for the potential  cases that Chuck mentioned.
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:31 PM spencer shepler <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for the additional context, Chuck.
>>
>> I was careful in my phrasing.  The errata should be reviewed in this time
>> frame.  Resolution may or not mean document updates but the work does need
>> to be completed.
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Spencer-
>>>
>>> > On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:57 PM, spencer shepler <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for the input, David.
>>> >
>>> > As working group chair, I am asking that the errata, at a minimum, be
>>> reviewed during this time frame and potentially included in this update.
>>> >
>>> > Magnus, as AD, has registered his desire to see our errata addressed
>>> and agree with him that the working group should complete this work.
>>> >
>>> > If the working group cannot find the time to review and address errata
>>> on existing documents but has the time to write new documents and take on
>>> new work - priorities don't seem to be aligned.
>>>
>>> That's not at all what's going on here. During the WG meeting, we did
>>> indeed decide to handle the errata, just not in 5661sesqui. We decided
>>> to address them by starting an rfc5661bis process.  Magnus was at that
>>> meeting, and could have expressed a desire at that time to handle the
>>> errata in sesqui, but he did not.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the sesqui document is to extend the use of
>>> fs_locations_info and deal properly with Transparent State Migration.
>>> It is therefore outside the scope of this document to address all
>>> outstanding errata. The only relevant errata for sesqui would be in
>>> the area of Transparent State Migration or fs_locations_info, and
>>> I wouldn't have an objection to reviewing those particular errata.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Spencer
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:10 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata
>>> as part of this document's review and
>>> > > potential updated content for this document.
>>> >
>>> > I would prefer that the working group focus on the document's adequacy
>>> to provide the update of the multi-server namespace  functionality
>>> replacing the work previouly dione by draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update and
>>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update, but in the bis-like form that the
>>> IESG has indicated it wants.
>>> >
>>> > While I would be interested to hear about existing and new errata, I
>>> don't believe we want to take on the job of addressing all of those at this
>>> time and expect us to do that work later as part of an rfc5661bis document
>>> as I described in the slides I presented at IETF105.   I have heard no
>>> comments from the working group indicating that anyone had a problem with
>>> that plan and so I don't think it is likely that we will change it now.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:52 PM spencer shepler <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is notice of the start of the working group last call for this
>>> document:
>>> >
>>> > Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol
>>> >
>>> > Data tracker version may be found here:
>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns/
>>> >
>>> > Full text of this version may be found here:
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01.txt
>>> >
>>> > Note that I am setting the timeout for this last call at 4 weeks to
>>> allow reviewers adequate time to review the document and provide comments.
>>> >
>>> > There are a number of errata that exist for 5661 (
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>>> )
>>> >
>>> > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
>>> part of this document's review and potential updated content for this
>>> document.
>>> >
>>> > Again, working group last call ends end-of-day, September 23rd.
>>> >
>>> > Spencer
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chuck Lever
>>> [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>