Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter
spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> Tue, 29 August 2017 16:32 UTC
Return-Path: <spencer.shepler@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 46DCA1321D5; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 7NL1ucAX5eyn; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (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 8A0151329AB; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id r203so31728914oih.0; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qCWu4xgI+JNPKeIfvz/XxOaC/j3c5WzmmZcTwck/0BE=; b=PrCH1YnHCUC2ySZeLndApRgdWjwHZOFN2yHo/MurKoe5CM6huk9ml61HPxEQLXKcPD Hj16vqnoO5nN0NMYvE8WEahRsPq6OxJAxzcRKioKlhqur1VRfGC8xolajvFLIeGnJd5a bOvqQr55uLi5WW3THndaOO3GXe29g6yBZ3DfiNd5eVfAS1Uwvcgu4yZCvXPs+jTe5lcb ujQHCcPG0M+PXyu86Sqxv22l7xz8trct9cb5l535zTqBSGGt192S8rJbA/GgQeePLQ+7 6cV47mcUwTc40LCqDJkd8+xErK/46SUaBhns/6HZ4KTHqzgFcvgHVOwII6+4+A51pHdo OfmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qCWu4xgI+JNPKeIfvz/XxOaC/j3c5WzmmZcTwck/0BE=; b=Wd9yn7gJc9JWbmbuMIF79DQOiddErEk9T8NWhfu6ns7y/Aw68t4sCDmTt44yc4157p 9YOKf2xl/4Hw5cxSvnotu5ysrwYm+PMQRnYTB8uqspCJbWdmbwa7s55JfzidS3QfKlcf xR61Ykrzzm5RKlKD9vi0I3IzeDs2S1kxtbluhkmdC0lDOfbPucw0Gkxb+PGHCYf+VZ6p f5UD72Y4ofPHypPXDSGxmF111FSV/mQFCAcFI27czTDk/nOpVKLjcBvk+T69BZKjmEV+ j2dP0+wq7Aoqi9BqG/Q2qhRy8VZpLuZn63dB+eYNknh7CpithFOMFJnS1Aq5YGjM8Ro9 Ud0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5izVjly5G8st+6XxbjJAH5Y+C5iOrqKv/QSvyXlaVm7RcSOvF82 VaHWyzOeci1rpvOkaycY3xce8PVgnw==
X-Received: by 10.202.78.85 with SMTP id c82mr763416oib.138.1504024337726; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.108.26 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jd8KtOwKz_T6zNLsbJGR3mL4ySqcytkLodRsrU9zUd4HA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADaq8jdNRenxK0yfXC9xpmCidfzuetcrC=dhkK7w2TnehZ6X4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6Ba=qLqJGN2XCy_RE9sMMkU1-TjommK9Zhz7Y6Pvo2+E4hQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-eqoPnkUcXLnB+=13S1iDcxkp8jXaDcG6a2kWeiQ9pVug@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jeWSUPj6mO9ixvLcacaOJR1X3V+X=ng3Cv2wzHb_d-Niw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-c+1==KWqL1T8jZaVT1LBL7OvfV2gf3Lq-pY+aXF5xg=A@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jd8KtOwKz_T6zNLsbJGR3mL4ySqcytkLodRsrU9zUd4HA@mail.gmail.com>
From: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFt6BamSyegRE-DykHUQgXwciQ8CvFr6hRcEb2cW-d-i_2hjwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, "nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>, nfsv4-ads@ietf.org, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c183aa6243e40557e6f4a2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/jvXL4GI15uZHwCm5mb3WpZWKbww>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:32:21 -0000
I think with the affirmation from Spencer D. that if the charter covers the work that milestone updates are not considered a recharter but more of a clerical update to make timeline/work clear to align with the WG I-Ds that are taken on. In the end, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Spencer On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:34 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 < > spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, David, >> >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> >> 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) >> > >
- [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter Black, David