[nfsv4] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

The formal status of these is "Reported" which really means they haven't
been reviewed yet.  Normally, the review process is triggered by an email
sent to the authors.  In thjs case, two of the authors are no longer active
in the IETF but since I am, there might have been an email sent to my
netapp email.  I will look but if I  missed it a year ago, it us probably
not recoverable now.

There should be a way to kick off the review process without the email but
I'm not sure one exists.  I will send mail to ietf-action to see.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 6:03 PM Pali Rohár <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello, Thank you for reply and looking at it.
>
> Anyway, what is the format status of those erratas?
> I have reported year ago but they have not been reviewed yet.
>
> Pali
>
> On Thursday 05 September 2024 13:44:24 David Noveck wrote:
> > Will include these in -05.  Should be out next week.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 1:30 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, I'll take a look.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 12:28 PM Pali Rohár <[e-mail]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello David, could you look at errata reports which I sent for
> RFC5662?
> > >> It would be nice to review them and incorporate fixed into new bis
> > >> document.
> > >> Pali
> > >>
> > >> On Thursday 05 September 2024 12:09:32 David Noveck wrote:
> > >> > IIRC, an earlier version of this draft was supposed to be going
> through
> > >> the
> > >> > adoption call process, starting "at or before" IETF120.  If there is
> > >> some
> > >> > reason/issue explaining why it has not been adopted, I need to get
> an
> > >> > explanation of that so that I can address whatever issues exist,
> > >> allowing
> > >> > us to make progress on the respecification effort.
> > >> >
> > >> > This case is much better than that for the security document, which
> has
> > >> > lingered in the adoption-requested-but-no-response state for about
> two
> > >> > years, but we need to avoid a repetition of that situation,  I
> think the
> > >> > chairs need to follow up on all the documents for which adoption has
> > >> been
> > >> > requested, in a reasonable time, which has not been the case.
> > >> >
> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > >> > From: <[e-mail]>
> > >> > Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:49 AM
> > >> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > >> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > >> > To: David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > A new version of Internet-Draft
> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > >> has
> > >> > been
> > >> > successfully submitted by David Noveck and posted to the
> > >> > IETF repository.
> > >> >
> > >> > Name:     draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis
> > >> > Revision: 04
> > >> > Title:    Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1
> External
> > >> Data
> > >> > Representation Standard (XDR) Description
> > >> > Date:     2024-09-05
> > >> > Group:    Individual Submission
> > >> > Pages:    79
> > >> > URL:
> > >> >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > >> > Status:
> > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis/
> > >> > HTMLized:
> > >> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis
> > >> > Diff:
> > >> >
> > >>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04
> > >> >
> > >> > Abstract:
> > >> >
> > >> >    This document provides the External Data Representation Standard
> > >> >    (XDR) description for Network File System version 4 (NFSv4) minor
> > >> >    version 1.
> > >> >
> > >> >    It includes protocol extensions made as part of respecification
> > >> >    effort for minor version 1.
> > >> >
> > >> >    It obsoletes and replaces RFC5662.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The IETF Secretariat
> > >>
> > >
>