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

- 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.”

As that document uses the term, it (non-extensibility) means that
extensions cannot be made within v4.1., i.e., that v4.1 is fixed.  It does
not exclude the possibility that extensions will be made in
a subsequent minor version, based on NFSv4.1.

Why isn’t the reference to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning Normative?

One possible reason is that, if it  were, v4.2 would be held up by that
normative reference, for a fairly long time.

I don't think any reference to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning is necessary.
The versioning approach for NFSv4.2 was conceived and effectively set in
stone before a single line of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning was written.

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>