Re: [nfsv4] IETF 98 - NFSv4 WG meeting (soliciting agenda items)

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

On  2/1/2017, Spencer wrote:
> On the topic of the MISREF, Christoph has responded with the references
that have been published that will suffice to move the RFC forward.

"will suffice" or "should suffice"?

> We are awaiting response from the RFC editor.

Thirteen  days later, the document is still in MISSREF and appears not to
have moved forward
at all.  Maybe something has happened that I'm unaware of but it may be
that you are still
waiting for a response from the RFC editor.  Has there been a response yet,
or at least some sort of an ETA provided?



On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Spencer Shepler <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On the topic of the MISREF, Christoph has responded with the references
> that have been published that will suffice to move the RFC forward.  We are
> awaiting response from the RFC editor.
>
>
>
> Spencer
>
>
>
> *From:* nfsv4 [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David Noveck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:52 AM
> *To:* Christoph Hellwig <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [nfsv4] IETF 98 - NFSv4 WG meeting (soliciting agenda
> items)
>
>
>
> >> whether he
> >> is able to be physically present or not.
>
> > I won't make it to Chicago, but I plan to be in Prague in July.
>
>
>
> I hope you'll consider remote participation.  I did this for IETF96 in
> Berlin and it seemed to go OK.  Of course, I had  to get up at some ungodly
> time in the morning but you won't have that problem since the time zone
> issues are reversed (unless you are in Asia in late March).
>
>
>
> > It's in the RFC Editor stage now, and I just had an interaction with
> > them yesterday.
>
>
>
> I saw the MISSREF.  I''m guessing this is the SAM-5 issue.  I went looking
> for it and the result was sobering.  This started in 2004 and it is now in
> the ANSI approval process.  The page said 65% complete,, which might mean
> this is years away.
>
>
>
> It seems like the IETF is headed this way (rough consensus, running code,
> interminable review) which would be a shame.  I'd like to understand why
> things are getting slower and slower and see what can be done to improve
> the process.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:44:07AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> > I hope we can hear from Christoph regarding NVMe-related stuff,
>
> I might do another minor update of the NVMe layout, I just need to find
> some time.
>
> > whether he
> > is able to be physically present or not.
>
> I won't make it to Chicago, but I plan to be in Prague in July.
>
> > In addition, I'd like us to her
> > about the progress of the scsi layout draft.  That took eight months to
> go
> > from -00 to working group consensus :-) and over thirteen months after
> that
> > and it is not out yet :-(. I think we have a general problem and need to
> > understand it better before we try to fix it.  Hearing from Christoph
> would
> > help us understand what is going on.
>
> It's in the RFC Editor stage now, and I just had an interaction with
> them yesterday.
>
>
>