IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Issues for precis

Tom Haynes <tom.haynes@oracle.com> Mon, 09 August 2010 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.haynes@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2513A6944 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHjAN22ZSSlT for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com (rcsinet10.oracle.com [148.87.113.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BDD3A67C2 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o79EnxPV011383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:50:00 GMT
Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o79EnvEE023606; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:49:57 GMT
Received: from abhmt007.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 499167961281365310; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:48:30 -0700
Received: from [192.168.2.6] (/98.184.164.41) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:48:29 -0700
Message-ID: <4C60152F.8020009@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:48:15 -0500
From: Tom Haynes <tom.haynes@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noveck_David@emc.com
References: <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8001FDB584@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com> <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB03453502@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8001FDB9B4@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com> <C2D311A6F086424F99E385949ECFEBCB03453E71@CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com> <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8002266711@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8002266711@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Issues for precis
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Aug 2010 14:49:30 -0000

Noveck_David@emc.com wrote:
>   I had understood that there
> was concern about the dispatch with which RFC3530bis would be produced.
> There was a concern with Tom's proposed target and the fact that it
> differed from one in the charter by some months, although I don't
> understand the motivations for very prompt attention to this matter well
> enough to understand whether there is something there that would
> override the considerations that David has offered.
>
>   

Sep 2009 WG Last Call for rfc3530bis (NFS version 4)

I don't care how hard we work on 3530bis, we are not going to hit that 
date. :->

I thought one of our AIs was to come up with a realistic date for the 
charter. Nov 2010
might be reachable, but I think it is a stretch.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status