Re: [nfsv4] WG adoption of draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

Although Gmail thinks that this a reply, it is actually a follow-up for my
request sent on 12/20/2023. So there is no issue of me replying to myself
and no issue of multiple personality syndrome to worry about :-)

I had originally hoped that the three weeks to the next wg interim meeting
would give us time to complete a two-week comment period and allow us to
resolve this long-deferred matter at the 1/16 interim meeting.  Given the
time that has already elapsed, that no longer seems possible. Sigh!

I have received no updates regarding this request.  If there are
impediments that would delay prompt work on this request, I need whoever is
dealing with this request to let me know about the issue so that it can get
addressed.

If that is not possible, we will have to address the matter at the 1/16
interim meeting.  Given what happened with the original request to adopt
-06, I don't think that we can again simply wait passively and hope that
one of the chairs is taking care of this matter.  It makes more sense for
me and whichever chair takes responsibility for this to discuss the next
steps at this and subsequent interim meetings, allowing us  to make sure we
have process  that leads to a prompt resolution of this matter.

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 5:23 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I would like to formally request that the working group adopt this
> document, currently at its -07 draft, as a working group document.
>
> I suggest that the working group be asked for its comments as soon as
> possible. Given that the next interim meeting is scheduled for 1/16, this
> should allow a two-week period for comments  plus time to summarise the
> results and present a decision at the interim meeting.  This will give us
> an opportunity to formulate a plan of action, whatever the decision is.  I
> don't think we can afford a repeat of the situation with the previous
> adoption call in which there was uncertainty about the precise contours of
> the working group's response and a consequent delay as the draft whose
> adoption was request ceased to be relevant.
>
> One important point regarding the adoption call is that we need to clearly
> distinguish issues with the precise contents of the draft, which could be
> addressed after adoption from feelings, if they exist,, that the
> current draft is not a suitable vehicle in its current form , for the
> working group to address  NFSv4 security issues.  If the latter, we need to
> understand what changes might be required, so those changes cab made,
> allowing the working group to continue to make progress.
>