[nfsv4] Status of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Wed, 10 October 2018 09:39 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 033FB130EA9 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 VvFoNf8LgLli for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x330.google.com (mail-ot1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (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 AFACF130DE5 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x330.google.com with SMTP id u22so4654644ota.12 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=z4LsRzdhJfak5eHgxIQ4n8scN5pADiXdBVKh1ZftqXw=; b=Fq19y+R2rPorhUqFict8OX2NGEwIIJvH0kmCoN2BdSoNzxl26FfSydR2fVn5aJXCYm /LxTED2rXgLkACqAXa1Rj48+FVyVnQbUKQeUckCfV0So87QiWqC0AIj/TQZxw8f2sPbu VXdjCAZK3uj+7Cy1WaIv1yAbrvUI73MsZ6aBQEG5pIM8Sj1DBIIefWOGaR6K3Kmhx9HF 6ZeOhe3zAdyXYfzMkt7flTDex9KJxG3+dQhC6KE8pQXkgYLs3d4UBe3DS6BWcdWp1jgu jAl4tvMKLi9PBsuVOEkxy8Sl4nSMTAClLz/sTfQbbxB9Jezfcc+Lztr9bn6+doUpIIj8 xf2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=z4LsRzdhJfak5eHgxIQ4n8scN5pADiXdBVKh1ZftqXw=; b=pEKnOqtrLnpO+ZQvTuYrFYwfev7b1xqPvU/WqI+LH5yMZJL/ZreAa0WS6REaMBS+G2 0pqLhQbAfFENsmfIz8VZE8zIz7xQWL9DcvUEXTvwI6s/YQmrubqdIcJcIxSYrfIjIKxl 0qSJHDVGzQbqDHIgJHGfgMTkmjd8uvDKxPLCkELhgPU2ijaTKtHIVsg+O7ljRNwVJm0z Yc3zVHSwdxmzYvnuv3Q/hz4/Q+HVNHF5Si27bKN2hzGXhg46x+FiFrAaBtSO7aV7SD5o VTs+BdD3m7pCaMkCYu2P+ZFxxkeoJySi1ehx38Q/MYEEJngPDQtnGQvFJy+0tOwQC41W OYzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogwIcxPdEDjRAHdNeeXtEbUQOOJtYjhEUHUbbIDYBYamiiO9kho OsQBJx45IOBI3ZC7jPOAs9nk6tAgRu2CotbW8tw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV617WGj6REn8HNh7ecCK9avtaEkhi+gyxNEoXRXinMwMgFEufk2XmDaG9xxDWy7DWj9v/4Z7gdWvErYga+tFgBg=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5b6:: with SMTP id 51mr18664316otd.221.1539164352858; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 05:39:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jfzvAX+SweSMzu8rN868P8T=ZQHb0O+Fg-h0pJDi3ZqkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000080cecf0577dca016"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/eoWSOr9Bp5i_ECgYPb8oeWRf43M>
Subject: [nfsv4] Status of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:39:17 -0000
We need more information about the current status and future of this document. Since WGLC ended, we have not received status updates and the datatracker entry appears out-of-date. Here's a brief summary of what I know: - Working Group Last Call for this document started on 7/24 and was scheduled to end on 8/10. - On 8/16 Chuck indicated that no last call comments had been received and inqiuired as to next steps for the document. - On 8/19 you responded to Chuck, indicating that your vacation had caused an unavoidable brief delay and that you intended to shepherd the document forward. From this, I (and probably others) assumed that there was no question that working group consensus on the document had been achieved and that further steps to advance consideration of it would happen soon. - On 10/3. Chuck noticed that the document was still listed on the datatracker with a WG state of "I-D Exists". Apparently, the state was never updated to reflect the start or end of working group last call or the fact that working group consensus had been achieved. Chuck inquired whether there was someting that you needed from him (as editor) or me (as co-author). It is now two months since the end of last call and we have had no further information about the status of the document. The authors need to know about the current status and expected next steps for this document. This issue is of particular concern given that the target date for final submission for this document is 11/2018 and further delay would make it hard to achieve this date. The authors are conerned about this issue and others might be as well. Some questions that I think need clear answers: - How is the lack of a transition to WGLC to be dealt with? In the past this issue has ben dealt with simply by noting, after the fact, that the last-call took place but I'm not sure why that has not been done. If that is still OK from a IETF/IESG perspctive it needs to be done, to keep the datatracker listing of wg document status in accord with reality. - Are we right in presuming that, in your judgment, working group consensus has been achieved? Since the authors have received no indicaton of difficulties, one would normally assume so. However, the fact that the document is still in "I-D exists" makes things confusing and uncertain. We need to get a quick clarification about the document status. - Unfortunately, despite your indication that you would shpherd the document forward, according to the data tracker, there is no current shepherd assigned which is apparently in conflict with your statement to Chuck about proceeding to shepherd this document forward. Again, we need clarification as to the status of this document. Since the datatracker info is often unreliable, we need to get clarity on this point, to be sure if work on shepherding this document is proceeding and what we can expect in terms of schdule. Authors and the rest of the working group need a realiable source of information about the status of documents once thet are ready for working group last call and the data tracker currently is not fulfilliing that function. I'd like to make a couple of suggestions to improve the situation in the future: - The WG status for documents needs to be updated in the data tracker whenever the status changes. I realize that this kind of update might strike one as excessive and I agree that it can be annoying. However, as the datatacker is the one available means to commmunicate this information to the working group members (and others), it makes sense to keep it accurate. - Given that we have target dates for many of our active documents, these should be noted on the data tracker. - When there is a substantial delay in proceeding to the next step of document processing (over a week), I suggest that there is a need to properly set expectations with the document authors (and the working group as a whole, if you so choose). With regard to this specific document, I think it makes sense for you to decide on a realistic plan to submit it for IESG consideration and share that with the working group. ReplyForward
- [nfsv4] Status of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-u… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Status of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunki… spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Status of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunki… spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Status of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunki… Chuck Lever