[nfsv4] Re: Draft adoption for WG - draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-10

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

I believe the reason that Tom proposed that we do things this way and the
reason I followed that suggestion is that we have an important area where
the existing specifications are in a terrible state and need major rework.
Given that context, doing it twice did  not seem to make sense.  For
example, who is going to sign up to do an rfc7530bis?

Also, we have already adopted a. rfc5661bis document that specifies that
security is to be dealt with in an NFSV4-wide document, just as
internationalization and protocol extension are.

I thought it was widely understood that the approach of having a single
all-singing all-dancing specification for each minor version had outlived
its usefulness.  I don't see any reason to go back to that model.



On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 12:45 PM Christoph Hellwig <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I still haven't seen any good argument for a separate security document
> outside the actual protocol specification and thus don't think WG
> adoption is helpful here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>