Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 21E433A115E; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 05j9Z45zoE3f; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr130083.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.13.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6892B3A114F; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LA4qljVARzV2a6VGOts1Z89UzimwA6l4ne0b/8bT0eVmwFH7+Y0HUhGe9a0PJdKt0QiNoHP39/Exs4pppqO9ubwJBi41zshwqH6wbMHsI5fHJm1i8rDifCZP3V7198Itby0aZZ/b4BviST2gEsEG0n88Uz2szZs4apMduShVcydGUz3YY71EmnPYjMKlxkG2kMbPf1qObU6Tj2ogGZ45JYCbvA9199tsf5ZldHOKSz9/9+cmNb9sH6xz9aiA1fHu5l2dX6OmMLekUN3mdcl1UnpbItnlneUSSTQCvXispnqVdLCoPTdpZTenI8kNT8ImVd3xYb5XxqPBh3TkqoQ7hg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=VPYE3ynIc+8wxGys5kPlju0IKoeMR4RX+5C/7MQi52I=; b=QIBdKpCRqR+51Ik61Nqi1cfYwJRXsOZDR8tnOWLKGcg5jF+nCefRRKHKehzaf+8WKXaUz79NeDZZvIITIJBtYLI+8EkE6BPtsDFIzB1+9KG7/EUDdtrS6G9OX6LFkMl1kSo1aqlI7VwTryE4VJC5zpZux2JSswyIYtg34AWCYUtEr1PhwPS6gfzODltJd34t2M4PduAMvjztT0LuGI8DCJM4bmB90qWsD0SHpBSmloVtUhnwsoykg4dT4YZzqv0teZa2G/wmbApXOsDk/5NiHYWCosg6cKJPyZ72yaF5YSAc6v7wYPVMAEtWcr+N8qZmJRDfXC9OW2og2wXLGBknUQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=VPYE3ynIc+8wxGys5kPlju0IKoeMR4RX+5C/7MQi52I=; b=vIllssg3RIi9jKPEwIL+jfI/gUxgFQCVeDqbNZVLPqIi4yiBk8vXGuN4yfdV9J8A5tZ0LjPT+pcWJeVmd4sfbbPhg2hVzmq0V2wjvXXuNM8QYHQjqw0RnyG29IxcW/odlWFU051LQ3LUp/aj6xl35e/UIwYPR7YnioJZ+gRGoaY=
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:7:8e::14) by HE1PR0701MB2266.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:2c::21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3239.9; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:10:15 +0000
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546c:3b3:9193:3351]) by HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546c:3b3:9193:3351%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3239.019; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:10:15 +0000
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
To: "davenoveck@gmail.com" <davenoveck@gmail.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns
Thread-Index: AdZlgsCZ8ZkWECpKQQqlZ6XD/98wHwAlMXYAAA54lIAAAuEpAAAFXMDA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:10:14 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR0702MB37721ABAD956BCEC69B4FD6395710@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HE1PR0702MB3772011E83C71FC05A28983F95700@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CADaq8jc=-q8g_Wdp7aV+WSsjMRq6MeNCznQv=Nx5vAS6WGYHug@mail.gmail.com> <a03ba85ed3dc0070035891734e209fbf66e93de3.camel@ericsson.com> <CADaq8jeWPLakBG7R6ibjF0n7t1EtWSPmtzLR7iMbvkCTfnYjeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jeWPLakBG7R6ibjF0n7t1EtWSPmtzLR7iMbvkCTfnYjeg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a00:801:2d1:97c9:3d92:4e19:2c50:15d1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: be79ea53-ad10-42d5-e79c-08d834924802
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2266:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR0701MB226641C0D677509B9A42D1A595710@HE1PR0701MB2266.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:5797;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: rgL+nzEMToykxzsCKhh/OBTV+1udzQV4JYBOdIHg2+sPLyp8rujItlz8iCqjsS64p/tggn+rts4jT+CF9oj+Lyyg1C8w10mL0ZNKz7guntbTc4IMYcJUfAUhodTwsNtcsLdWH+FPY2QspCwXqCO4IQk22u+xIiM30YaJqzu4+XVosVr5i4Qf44vQRdyC76rCq5FK3Pj0FQYcX+8va50BhMU/Eiu1KXyqDkv/zj5CNxZ1pdurZkd8BMGNWc2MqDJx6uVAHbhfv3sOerNguIv9wnGcvD2EK2lleKlntuvFp3PyL79wlI4h3XK0NYz1sa7OvErZzTum/1QrUWSYLmMthYsAlZr7UXsqipiROuJ4Q/VP2RXoJMO1ywtK+8TiaEtCZpdmnE6xw49eLx64vbZo/A==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(53546011)(52536014)(71200400001)(83380400001)(316002)(44832011)(86362001)(6506007)(186003)(54906003)(9686003)(8936002)(55016002)(15650500001)(4326008)(478600001)(166002)(7696005)(6916009)(2906002)(966005)(33656002)(66476007)(66616009)(8676002)(5660300002)(99936003)(64756008)(66556008)(66946007)(76116006)(66446008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01D6668B.E315EAC0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: be79ea53-ad10-42d5-e79c-08d834924802
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Jul 2020 14:10:14.9705 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 9pvDWNuPBr/L9TQU90Dt703kCf3LSjEklZ5k1onu/5EhBjZIfrFmYF0ibO033ngLg5Sx6B8QyoCjHoz50aZ720vKw+/acsr6p689AbRq1Ck=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2266
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/p4jAn2nXpDR0s3bHbnGekI-mtQI>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:10:23 -0000

Hi David and the WG,

 

Let us straight something out regarding the process here.

 

Yes, authors need to approve of the changes in AUTH-48 done by the RFC-editor. 

 

When it comes to any changes proposed by the authors or by the RFC-editor that has the potential to change the document meaning, the AD have the review responsibility and decision power to approve or reject them. My decision can of course be appealed if you authors or the WG think the decision was made in error. However, it is very common that there are some changes in AUTH48 that do require AD approval as the RFC-editor thinks it appear to change the meaning of the document compared what was approved by the IESG. But to make it clear the Responsible AD for the document is not an “ex parte” as David put it in the AUTH48 process. 

 

So yes these questions from the RFC-editor should have come to the authors and me as AD at the same time. However, due to that I stopped by the RFC-editor table and talked with them, they thought to ask me first which was a mistake. I have told the RFC-editor to forward our single exchange with my response to the authors for transparency. This email basically contains a bunch you will need to ask the authors. Regarding the subject of the two Errata they raised, I short circuited this discussion to not only be the authors that got to provide input to raise this in front of the whole WG directly. Sorry if I didn’t express clearly that this was an proposal from the RFC-editor that I generalized on my own initiative. I am sorry this surprised the authors, and my desire to avoid additional delay apparently caused unnecessary reactions.   But the intention here was only to ensure that this proposal for a change is getting WG input. 

 

To be clear, there are no decision made yet. It is open for the Authors and WG to provide input to this proposal. However, I consider that the final decision on this is mine, that was why I noted that I would make a decision on Monday after you have had a chance to provide input. If you think the deadline is to short it can be extended. I will most certainly listen to the authors and WG. And if you think we should stick to no errata changes please express that to. 

 

Hope this clarifies

 

Magnus Westerlund

 

 

From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> 
Sent: den 30 juli 2020 12:34
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns@ietf.org; NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>; RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: Verified editorial Errata on 5561 and sesqui-msns

 

 

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:11 AM Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> > wrote:

Hi David and WG,

WG, I am requesting your input on this matter. I intended to make a decision on
Monday (3rd of August) after 12:00 CEST. 

 

I'm not sure what decision you are referring to, given that you are not an author of this document.  It appears that the rfc editor has confused the process by raising issues relating to the ongoing AUTH48 with you ex parte. I hope this will not be repeated as it makes it harder for the authors to deal with the process.

 

 

 

 



Please see inline. 

On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 22:17 -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:01 AM Magnus Westerlund <
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> > wrote:
> > Hi Authors and WG
> >  
> > This relates to the ongoing AUTH48 for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns
> 
> I'm hoping it won't be going on.uch longer. I don't want it to go past
> AUTH192.
> >  
> > I got a question from the RFC-editor about some of the errata filed on RFC
> > 5561. These where two errata that are editorial and verified. They are
> > basically typos or other very basic issues but of potential importance to
> > understanding. And maybe we should include these change into this document
> > instead of continue to confuse the reader.
> 
> What two erratta reports did they ask about?

They asked me about Errata 2330 and 2548. Both very basic typos, which I believe
they spotted in working with the document.


> 
> Are they working on these updates now?  I'd like to keep good track of all the
> last-minute changes being merged into this document

No, they are not working on this. They are waiting for me with your input to
tell them what to do with it. 

 

If they wanted my input, they could have asked me for it, and avoided a lot of confusion and delay.

 

Let me provide my input now: go ahead and make the changes for 2330 and 2358.

 


> 
> > However looking in the Errata list there are more that of this basic type
> > but wasn’t obvious in the copy editing.
> >  
> > The Errata that I think falls into this category are:
> >  
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3558 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=4ffa126e-114a8ff4-4ffa52f5-867b36d1634c-ad7230720dfd2682&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid3558> 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2062 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=7c8df67b-223d6be1-7c8db6e0-867b36d1634c-c63798416b7852e6&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2062> 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2249 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=847b7442-dacbe9d8-847b34d9-867b36d1634c-61d5c65cc8773be8&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2249> 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2280 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=bbcfc091-e57f5d0b-bbcf800a-867b36d1634c-4449d2b36fa482f0&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2280> 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2324 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=bf6c7cf2-e1dce168-bf6c3c69-867b36d1634c-cef67b0dee3c8936&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2324> 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2330 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=0d900b06-5320969c-0d904b9d-867b36d1634c-8a5dbc417bb0d4c7&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2330> 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2548 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d5ec7343-8b5ceed9-d5ec33d8-867b36d1634c-78adef88ff190383&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2548> 
> >  
> > So the above ones is the ones I wonder if we simply should have the RFC-
> > editor apply before publication?
> 
> I'll ask the rfc editor of they can address these expeditiously, in the
> context of AUTH48.  If they can, then it is just a question of Chuck and me
> giving final approval to the AUTH48 changes.

 

So I'm asking the editor of they could address these expeditiously. Let the authors know of any issues you see.  I hope the authors will be able to make a decision at that point.

 


Yes, the intention is to deal with this now before concluding AUTH48. And having
looked at these Errata, this is less than an hours work to incorporate into the
document. So from a work perspective, from the point I make a decision to do
this change (if that is what I conclude) would take the RFC-editor less than a
work day to get the authors the updated document, and then you authors would
have to verify that these changes are properly done. From my perspective it is
likely that this input period is the longest delay here. 

 

Exactly the problem.  

 



> 
> > I think this is simply correcting things that the WG knows are wrong in
> > RFC5661 and it could help the reader. I am aware of this is not following
> > what was previous said about Errata, but I think this category should have
> > been included as they appear very straight forward and have been previously
> > classified as relevant for understanding and have risk of causing
> > implementation errors. If the WG participants think we should stick with
> > previous path and not include them I will listen. However, take a look at
> > them before you make that assessment.
> 
> Given that you have requested this change, I don't see waiting for a group
> assessment of these verified errata reports in the middle of AUTH48.

No, I have not requested these changes yet. I am asking the WG if you think this
is the right step? I personally think it makes sense to incorporate the above
listed Errata but no additional errata. However, I want the WG feedback on this
matter. 

 

I can't see the wg members deciding to spend their weekend sorting through erratta reports.  I don't expect any meaningful feedback.

 


> >  
> >  
> > There are two Errata that are listed as editorial and verified that are not
> > straight forward nor necessary only editorial
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2328 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e211a879-bca135e3-e211e8e2-867b36d1634c-2f9cf672b2472980&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid2328> 
> > This appears to an Error code that is missing in RFC5661 and should be
> > listed in Section 15.1.16. This doesn’t have text that can just be applied
> 
> Doesn't seem very pressing.
> >  
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4215 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f68e8124-a83e1cbe-f68ec1bf-867b36d1634c-af3ea5655b635ae4&q=1&e=2f8ad34d-a579-401f-a893-9bb784ac8ad6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid4215> 
> > This Errata appears to fix a unclear statement in fourth paragraph of
> > Section 22.2. However, I don’t see this as Editorial as it changes the IANA
> > procedure even if what is currently written is confusing.
> >  
> > So these I would leave for the proper bis to take care of.
> 
> Fair enough.
> >  
> > Cheers
> >  
> > Magnus Westerlund
> >  
> >  
> >  
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------