[nfsv4] Conclusion of WGLC for draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 12 December 2016 17:24 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 1F3CB129D35; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 fmj0cosol8IG; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (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 6FB60129D2B; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id b126so95372524oia.2; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:24:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ffGq0m5fXDp6miMfvdOW/EwBjuL2klkQcIc39rhkNHc=; b=IsM6F7OpOypQfv0IPYtHFYQCWc1i9LhcaHza7UU2e8d78p9qulbYjWaPiUg42JA+gY xZ0sIDt8s/DrpK1n82vr+ApQq6A+DdoKhpfuGg9PQlchpuyrsbBDsXay4EWiQHNPAE1b LY+M7VszeYP1rq537Yefl8Pto72xISzrDdAHt1bWx97gQX5EFRy5INdWTma8XHZ/a/TI K8afpaBCYXyJhJznSbYDZo/Pjx2aIc0opZGgqugyaUI2jHH7jl02lE2SK/wRPZogh6Lg 9oZ3YaYeHw3RVohilfomvrbnAEIXCsNQhAZbR36adM7LDM0a8ODMj+fNGFxQUn3yJ6Jv kdkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ffGq0m5fXDp6miMfvdOW/EwBjuL2klkQcIc39rhkNHc=; b=B0EPU2cbZ1MXTx7cNlSSlEc16f17Ok/Akv+ICfvWOTPVUy5NJJyH7l6hMGdY39d6BP 1plfih91fyLu0VpKAFyFlB4GDOYtKjM956ekXp+Ac5C+OnjwiS8HQj90ijpqnK3dSgCB ohOVlbX7Sr955yuQP8c/4OnZoOsAlN7ps2Qf4SibW9RardOpNfraE33CyYkWfjFNLKdt VQQONu+Pvxq70RQ7xNLquuuaaixlDExxS4dFXLLeknYBW4gvqxlWnuhpQc7/RF08UdCI 5W0mWNjiDHOHnu9Oq6kOwYc+ueQhQzFtKnALuE10HpIfA3cMT66mYsHuoMZRKzdettQs i0HQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00vnbO373Q/jP4lT6+vKVIljn0Btkx28m0jvX6GF4PtS8pVzi3qkhzPQtpGR1uxC795aEWk9e3+vaxaYQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.228.83 with SMTP id b80mr50247739oih.214.1481563470699; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:24:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.137.202 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:24:30 -0800 (PST)
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:24:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdf6sR=PBpo-NeHiSuBpNG3qYguXToS5FhpZMiATmrUDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141baaa6223e60543796083
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/bVzDuUIkO9ksirFMDk8pLAj9mJE>
Cc: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: [nfsv4] Conclusion of WGLC for draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:24:34 -0000

With the inclusion of the last set of  changes requested by Mike Kupfer
(see https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09), it
appears that working group last call for this document has completed, in my
view successfully.

As a result, it appears that it is now time for a judgment to be made
regarding the issue of working group consensus, and, if that judgment is
positive, to proceed to have this document go forward with the goal of its
publication as a Proposed Standard.  Please keep the working group informed
of the progress of this document, particularly if there are unexpected
delays in the process.