Re: [nfsv4] Proposed Working Group Charter

spencer shepler <> Tue, 29 August 2017 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DCA1321D5; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:21 -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 7NL1ucAX5eyn; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A0151329AB; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r203so31728914oih.0; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:18 -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=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;; 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 with SMTP id c82mr763416oib.138.1504024337726; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: spencer shepler <>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:32:17 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: David Noveck <>
Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>, "" <>,, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c183aa6243e40557e6f4a2"
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 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.


On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:34 AM, David Noveck <> 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 <
>> 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)