Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04.txt

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 18 November 2019 08:18 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 D07241200B2; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:18:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 oozanYGNWQ3J; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (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 4AC491200A1; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 94so13736801oty.8; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:18:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JRtgrufWQE3DBFhUdHsZwH6ZUCmvtCpneZWvDvMBvm0=; b=RyUB4I240+uwlAmTlHY3LZksarJd4jS7cl6XilLT6bmF/Y3RCeicNlbeVuJW59pXtF 1Q+5YxMXX5GVtnN4F0E3rGCCCjcuUPx7Kk48L0p+D51loLxAEhXOrCrkL0U6tfcpH6M4 r5lV/9ZolyPX450jkf0coMsYGS//RLbu9Sseoe7kxRx16hkU1DvIPiBOjRADZLQ5R9T7 rd9Q3AIcpGYo5d/J9QN+mnVDnI6rkFpMSYb88rvArP1rHVAkHCt3JUM5ckSujfjL+BQQ PpXwI3Yi2wiXBRnPJ2DQepP7N1253Zq5akvWD+9TQ6ruKTo9u3TGFkMmBNihvF3NKcKO 5oOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JRtgrufWQE3DBFhUdHsZwH6ZUCmvtCpneZWvDvMBvm0=; b=RYqvJh5EAuBZZIpbRQKu3bg2m53/JyV4qGp33Af81h9/BUfiqENirLWrNsul6Jr4Db sjioSsh26wWUZHIxJOLCzfnpOlrvEXf3H9KoOdBCrTGvtyAeNaFN4d87YzArwLqfyk5h xEahxfl4htBjabxYYCl3UIe48+PkZKmm0kw/S8vXT5lfDmurhGwHwj5lH7mOmjoJVyFw UU0hx1k7LvIB82iIuRiM6KcqPRaY8E5UT2Gd1CTTEU+yvrArJwPKRVU8qMMTiKmfUPSN tLjOPykNh115qTtWnKQ9W/CaujMSxvDbsKUR78Ja04eXvfRlbSxUQQYRYIBjhuc2oMSp ZrHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVU+He9Mnb2AJOwNjixI7CtTLNN8X0MZEUOga5iyha831zqRhhI Owmnhv5qsyXM9rkVxrx3oHyccuMbxOy2RsWezDbyjA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyT2m8wK8D9KZ5DB5RoeKJQzREV0dnctGjqMsBDCCUhhybrNrjKEumm4rycKDA5h9Mzz5+6fcRckk14I6n2xnY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7c83:: with SMTP id q3mr21484447otn.66.1574065122513; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:18:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFt6BamOdFSWFc0UzjvTC5Vnju1WExA9o2TQvMUfkWBtvKMmug@mail.gmail.com> <4D26A2DC-B1A6-41EB-A790-B7A10FE784E1@oracle.com> <CADaq8jdxCOpzCkS=ZjArusU-v2PLtJdRBBx14ywz8RR-aDEzxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6BamRsn0oQfk0XHUqiSY=VREz8wvS9qEOf2bdMj+L53s1vw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFt6BamRsn0oQfk0XHUqiSY=VREz8wvS9qEOf2bdMj+L53s1vw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 03:18:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jfb_XsjMUsfyScTajkQMGJH-GdkEaWvLqZ07dyX1KS4uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4-ads@ietf.org, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, Derrell Piper <ddp@electric-loft.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007b1ab005979a98b1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/gBfTgmAojRGARwmUpOaleo2IZXE>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04.txt
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:18:45 -0000

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:17 AM spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> <with my working group co-chair hat OFF>
>

I don't believe that for a minute


> As to the milestone date, I asked the author for a date - one was
> provided.  It doesn't need to be then - could be much earlier.  What it
> takes to move a document to the point of WGLC is effort by the authors to
> shepherd it through the reviews necessary.
>

Note this document has *already* reached the point of WGLC. If it hadn't, a
six-month delay would not be troubling

Calling for conference calls, making the updates, working with individuals
> for their time for feedback. time to update the document, etc, etc.  We all
> have work projects that move much more quickly and we know how to make that
> happen - it can happen in the context of the IETF but it takes time and
> effort.
>

  Chuck has put in the necessary effort and I expect him to do so in the
future.


> You have Magnus' attention now.  So if the WG chairs become a burden in
> the future with respect to timely response - he will correct it.
>

I think of the timely response problem as an ongoing one that Magnus needs
to address.


> So... want an earlier date? Ask for the milestone to be set to that
> earlier date and execute.
>

I want to be clear that I am not faulting Chuck's choice.  In fact, knowing
the history and the fact that nothing has been done to address the
underlying issues, I might have made a similar choice, albeit with gritted
teeth.


> If June 2020 is reasonable given the scope of the document, time the
> author has to commit or other factors outside of the WG chairs past
> behavior,
>

If the shepherding crisis never happened, I would have chosen March 2020.

then that is fine as well but don't wave your hands in the air and lament
> the past.
>

I think we need to seriously address the past including a believable
explanation for the delay with cm-private-data and an apology to Chuck.


> Spencer
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:26 PM David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> How do people feel about June 2020?
>>>
>>
>> It is certainly doable.
>>
>> On the other hand, I find it distressing that people have come to treat
>> delays of the order that we have seen with cm-private-data (six months from
>> completion of WGLC) as expected.
>>
>> Given that Magnus has raised the possibility of the working group's
>> demise, I feel the need to "rage against the dying of the light".
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>
>>