Re: [nfsv4] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-40: (with COMMENT)

[Tom Haynes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay.

> On Jan 18, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-40: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have no objection to this document, but the relationship with the older
> versions and how versioning is handled is not clear to me.  Some parts of
> the document that add to my confusion:
> 
> - Section 2. (Minor Versioning) says that “NFSv4.2 only defines
> extensions to NFSv4.1”, but draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning [*] says that
> “minor versions zero and one are not extensible.”
> 
> - Section 1.1. (Scope of This Document) says that “NFSv4.2 is a superset
> of NFSv4.1, with all of the new features being optional”.  Which sounds
> to me as if this document is defining more optional features for NFSv4.1
> and not an extension.

We did not want to pull in all of the non-changing text from 5661.

> 
> In any case, I am not familiar with the versioning (which is why I wanted
> to learn about it), but I am now more confused than before.  It may all
> be a case of terminology..
> 
> [*] Why isn’t the reference to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning Normative? 
> Also, the reference ([NFSv4-Versioning]) is not formatted correctly.
> 
> 

I’ve fixed the formatting by moving the reference to:

   track documents updating that document (e.g., in an RFC based on
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-versioning]).


   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-versioning]
              Noveck, D., "NFSv4 Version Management", draft-ietf-
              nfsv4-versioning-03 (work in progress), January 2016.

which is the current document tracking the effort for minor versioning.

David is correct in that the reference is not normative. And while the
reference could come out, I did want to point out that a change was
in the process.

So perhaps:

   NFSv4.2 does not modify the rules applicable to the NFSv4 versioning
   process and follows the rules set out in [RFC5661] or in standard-
   track documents updating that document (e.g., in an RFC based on
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-versioning]).

becomes:

   NFSv4.2 does not modify the rules applicable to the NFSv4 versioning
   process and follows the rules set out in [RFC5661]. Any changes to that
   model would be published in a stand alone standard-
   track document, e.g., perhaps in an RFC based on
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-versioning].