Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter

David Noveck <> Tue, 29 August 2017 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E0E132936; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVQybrXHTsLq; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57AA313234E; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s101so20578203ioe.0; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VaER+9MJY0B7w2LYuxm4EG1mrpdWFlDP2QibB/nNv+E=; b=F+lf8FNvpVcXuAJ95kuVbtK8jdMyWKjVbZUfnFQHeZD0XHi29a7+kX4hu/Gii8jqQK iBfTST6+07kr9D1cvHVTBTbqjyhR3n4dezG166vsjc0jaxznc4i/F5i5qOBEw/CtNOA2 kGRg5SKcgoXSEq67Ur236Mgs5JgoJwuJO3i5yCtl5E3QfmsWxGdquwmBKRpQu/jmEuW8 MzeeoW3p/z7DEN97eintUAdOIwDc8h+V8CfemBnOMkz/VvpUADZv4S+4ooseJMpwWVLA TElB1w9uvD08T1XmkzC3HpyFViM94ucdKOxKDQElWpPid/IUjHxUHA/h4aPgSEgJwhce 66HA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VaER+9MJY0B7w2LYuxm4EG1mrpdWFlDP2QibB/nNv+E=; b=Qq5234v2q1zCHP1EmetCu4bQW1Psh2RqBed/BmntIaHUWUNqHJXU3FZxfQYtmBUO7T FlH5ISyYjBiy0zosoWmDLAk4rKCYgXwMhzX32gX+oKRZBWfxSmxzodWlcfWXRhZcxg0h azNTVnGh0SANWAvs5ifC87rMvRO7BATAYArQZcEiSKlPEXO+w/8DjNKBhH5lrGBh4OXJ rJ2S9oS2WrJYxDN6i8BZPpXKHp+E6Czrz2ftsGkSduJeFIsqgPZAxiyaafBkGABDnE+B uWDvsl6dl6m4hluheVlTDisInlzusXWBLyy9PKBX7LjW8kcPio3DOQvJkWj7FttdI4FC f3XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5guWUiX+9EeKHL1jmsxWQDjLToeRP1Y5exQrUUokm1yOfmwpyo+ 8Gd02ABzIZXNYFREfC34MvPrHJeweA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g70mr4594659iog.55.1504017257476; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: David Noveck <>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:34:16 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Cc: spencer shepler <>, "" <>,, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114040785e66ea0557e54e49"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:34:21 -0000

I don't recalll any discussion about adding milestones outside the context
of a new charter, but it might be that I was simply not involved in those
discussions (or it could be that I simply don't remember).   The chairs
might have some yseful observations..

In recent times, we have added a bunch of new work tems without adding
milestones corresponding to them.  I'm not sure exactly why milestones were
not added but it could have been any of the following:

   - There was no need to do so, since the IESG was not bothering us about
   a lack of milestones.
   - Given that a lot of our new work items were outside the current
   charter, there was an understandable reluctance draw attention to that fact.
   - The chairs or AD's were not clear about a procedure to add milestones
   outside of a charter revision.

I was always under the impression that new milestones did generally require
a charter revision.  Because of that, I was quite pleased when Spencer S.
found language similar to what we proposed in the TCPM charter.  Given our
needs (which were greater at the time since we only had one prospctive
milestone), it seemed just the thing we needed.  Over time, I added a bunch
of elaboration which you decided to remove.  At the time this text was
added, I assumed that Spencer S. also felt that without that text we would
have not been able to easily add milestones, but you should verify with him.

In any case, I accept that it might not be necessary.  However, given that
there is no indication that it is harmful, we might as well leave it in.

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> wrote:

> Hi, David,
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Noveck <>
> wrote:
>> > Any objection if I significantly reduce the paragraphs at the beginning
>> of the Milestones section? I'd be happier if we didn't remind the IESG that
>> NFSv4 has been working outside the charter and is now rechartering to
>> reflect the current situation.
>> No objection.
>> > So, my understanding is that NFSv4 wants a revised charter to match the
>> current work efforts already underway, but doesn't need to add additional
>> milestones now, is that right?
>> Yes, but we do need the option to add small milestones without another
>> rechartering.  In other other words, while there is no problem withr
>> reducing those paragraphs, there would  be a problem if they were reduced
>> into non-existence.
> Right. I'm thinking what's needed is just the very end:
> "new milestones that fall within
> the scope specified within the charter can be added to the list of
> milestones below after working group consensus upon acceptance and
> approval by the responsible Area Director"
> I don't KNOW that this is necessary, because I think that's the way
> charters work (you had consensus from the IETF for the *charter*, so adding
> milestones for work that falls within the charter is up to the working
> group and the AD who are actually doing the work), but you folks have way
> more experience at discussions within NFSv4 about adding milestones than I
> do, so I defer to your experience, and don't have any objection to the
> charter making that explicit if you folks think it's helpful.
> Spencer (D)