[nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-02
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Sat, 19 December 2015 12:05 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518CA1A88CA for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:05:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 cKVNiKf31eLN for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (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 C6E9D1A88C8 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id o124so72152196oia.1 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:05:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BKDDRx2THjU0C7lfz4lycHmLpgqDOR0Y67mMCIroxAA=; b=YMJRj8a5uV0GxEYdintcLIcaZWlp8S2luWUsecqd4nPfsl0CAHLYqMPsPxO4qWoFRN l2MuArFH/Nae1OT0PQdEiXRS+DPh6Kw2HLDd0ZzmN5A4IDO08nxQasH+E0UVYxG8QcSP EyKI8st7EY0p0kQZc1ionSYHcM6INvVXpUVd/taIw47CJdM7v6KMie3h4XuHVjgsAh45 H4X/sy6qfWzwRWNPIwpYtG31R49OddJFImbcLeyeMkmuV6sN8qt0I5b5PL/RdwxOhOZH vEE/5WHvtDmx0PL5lIpyOMYo6ZOtLe5ri2CqLv1tIwV+wwrLr1guj1jzaH4PT5V98+dh sq0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.105.73 with SMTP id e70mr3604489oic.137.1450526715145; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.165.102 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 07:05:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jfk+YVKzHNwApmjKLCzsaxqOPvGVRf_0FYwM7DtxmjjSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
To: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114090d69814e705273f1167"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/be1KLwTRg-Iqx7rAUCgWw1fXz7o>
Subject: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-02
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 12:05:17 -0000
I have a simple message regarding the above document: RTFD, meaning Review the (possibly) Final Draft. Basically, I submitted this draft over two months ago and I think it is pretty much done, but we need people to review and comment. In looking at some of the RFC's about IETF procedures, it often seems that the assumption is that if someone has a problem with the document, he will object and thus, that no news is good news. Realistically, working group chairs are reluctant to move documents forward simply because no objections have been offered. In the case of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530-migration-update-07, Chuck could explain what implementations existed and that was enough to go forward. For draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning, we won't have that option so I urge people to read the document and send your comments to the working group list.
- [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-02 David Noveck