Re: [nfsv4] Working Group last call for NFSv4.1 - ending September 23rd

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> The errata should be reviewed in this time frame

They certainly should be reviewed but it is not clear to me why they would
need to be reviewed by 9/23.   That would make sense if the document dealt
with these erratta, but since it does not, as Chuck explained, I don't see
the point of giving the working group two items to review at the same time:
this document and the errata that you have cited.

> I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
part of this document's review

I don't think that makes sense.  If the working group is given two things
to do as part of the same revIew, it make it likely that neither will be
done well.

> and potential updated content for this document.

I think the woorking group has decided that those potential updates will
not be realized, except for the potential  cases that Chuck mentioned.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:31 PM spencer shepler <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Thanks for the additional context, Chuck.
>
> I was careful in my phrasing.  The errata should be reviewed in this time
> frame.  Resolution may or not mean document updates but the work does need
> to be completed.
>
> Spencer
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Spencer-
>>
>> > On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:57 PM, spencer shepler <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for the input, David.
>> >
>> > As working group chair, I am asking that the errata, at a minimum, be
>> reviewed during this time frame and potentially included in this update.
>> >
>> > Magnus, as AD, has registered his desire to see our errata addressed
>> and agree with him that the working group should complete this work.
>> >
>> > If the working group cannot find the time to review and address errata
>> on existing documents but has the time to write new documents and take on
>> new work - priorities don't seem to be aligned.
>>
>> That's not at all what's going on here. During the WG meeting, we did
>> indeed decide to handle the errata, just not in 5661sesqui. We decided
>> to address them by starting an rfc5661bis process.  Magnus was at that
>> meeting, and could have expressed a desire at that time to handle the
>> errata in sesqui, but he did not.
>>
>> The purpose of the sesqui document is to extend the use of
>> fs_locations_info and deal properly with Transparent State Migration.
>> It is therefore outside the scope of this document to address all
>> outstanding errata. The only relevant errata for sesqui would be in
>> the area of Transparent State Migration or fs_locations_info, and
>> I wouldn't have an objection to reviewing those particular errata.
>>
>>
>> > Spencer
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:10 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
>> part of this document's review and
>> > > potential updated content for this document.
>> >
>> > I would prefer that the working group focus on the document's adequacy
>> to provide the update of the multi-server namespace  functionality
>> replacing the work previouly dione by draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update and
>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update, but in the bis-like form that the
>> IESG has indicated it wants.
>> >
>> > While I would be interested to hear about existing and new errata, I
>> don't believe we want to take on the job of addressing all of those at this
>> time and expect us to do that work later as part of an rfc5661bis document
>> as I described in the slides I presented at IETF105.   I have heard no
>> comments from the working group indicating that anyone had a problem with
>> that plan and so I don't think it is likely that we will change it now.
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:52 PM spencer shepler <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is notice of the start of the working group last call for this
>> document:
>> >
>> > Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol
>> >
>> > Data tracker version may be found here:
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns/
>> >
>> > Full text of this version may be found here:
>> > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01.txt
>> >
>> > Note that I am setting the timeout for this last call at 4 weeks to
>> allow reviewers adequate time to review the document and provide comments.
>> >
>> > There are a number of errata that exist for 5661 (
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>> )
>> >
>> > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
>> part of this document's review and potential updated content for this
>> document.
>> >
>> > Again, working group last call ends end-of-day, September 23rd.
>> >
>> > Spencer
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>>