Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2019 15:49 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EEF1205D6; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URgB5h2Qiukw; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com (mail-ot1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F85D120B9F; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 07:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id e5so3306504otk.12; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 07:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g/BOSqjWzYG0FgXbEvsdUi9SQmgANwOCXtpcUxpoFaE=; b=hp8Cylh8cBE4hvtMWylFLM+SAoBPyVRBJLeSHB83YqWtUc/qLG0HZbn/eRzelMMBrl 2HmGQTRMenQQaeHAkgfKzM3/rG6XXGLNDZHB4SAMYOR30y2ZhWtzMpGCSTR8UinRCF7w TDqYt8/6FVbjK7ocM1NYSKwzMdqpjzfZdfJ3CojmVP+6ToEvdwyrp4MDHQ0rGRFY1lMy 22+wYfZttPUt+XNxTSEXxyCFqsLg8G/R7NyEugssotDghDrO+Gl5WdJpGwwukpTMLlhr GKzNRtLnLO88yWQm8Oi0ElxdblwwfIro9U3+IaKovalQ0A55nThYQ5dCSNEQEY5X70Om +5wg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g/BOSqjWzYG0FgXbEvsdUi9SQmgANwOCXtpcUxpoFaE=; b=VPlI37/jsKOG+H3z2uWI3bNL95LN/8kofO8qa/pmbgiz/wt76F8O6fRBsX2oSIHCm1 wzPc1EC02xdTBE3Oe6gDNeGmofeXjVyN/r16W649WZyI7TqnXOCwWyMf1/cyIByI9oy2 UrAGKQGcBLZJSL4zhdyMV6BCn5hcK12TtFRxamdsUtR8U8HV7L8X1CoO37gIWsVwZ43Y X+6+5JL+gHIVpGCyN+raoHuFT2Px3O+pnwVt5dmkmNNYNdNfNAP8Rh2Ac+5zzttQP94u TjrPP0ux6/WghrIfJq/s6CTsYC04374KdfBgfPQSHQZvlBrzQosgyf8zz5/loWbVOgpX TEKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwcp2iEyHuGI4b7kvpCQ2BFu8rS1vImTNv6vhNp1kGZ57a+aYu y7M8WdwTstuyQBnfmaBQxeRFlnzd7c+IVQbDXgA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUCIWDv37QK63OeiqNZN7YQuMkPtxUKYWOyRQP3HqcPeLSKeLGVtFm5xNgNqV8izO5drBTaZT7DX/HbP0uFCY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:468:: with SMTP id 95mr52783818otc.240.1555424485923; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155184411184.27685.16459405842977852294.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADaq8jcbtAy+RnCsxLBHpGfX7YOUCXbVU21DKKF5yOuXtwM4GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-c++YwyEONK=He55uX0GR+23bc1jrjjU5hxHB3ipJYwmg@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jcA_TP5xrCy8VXBPRASA_o8rmxOpn+7PBnhH_1=2tHGEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jcA_TP5xrCy8VXBPRASA_o8rmxOpn+7PBnhH_1=2tHGEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:21:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdNOWEKqGxBCZ6+He6iNyUfQw7HmnU5VU=dFhFMGv=mTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f561640586a67b06"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/_txJDSv1ayjABUCm5iotPWWsHjs>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:49:20 -0000
I've just submitted draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update-00, replacing draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update. This draft addresses the issues that many IESG members had with the numerous updates to Section 11 of rfc5661. Instead it has a single section replacing (instead of modifying) Section 11. I hope that it will make it easier to deal with. It also should address the issues raised in Ben Kaduck's DISCUSS. On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:01 AM David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> 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 < > spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> 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) >> >
- [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nf… Datatracker on behalf of Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-iet… David Noveck