Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13.txt

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> Wait, I would have held off shipping a v-13 if I had known it reset the
last call.

It didn't reset anything.  However, last call ended on 8/11 and now we all
have to figure  out what to do about this document.

> I sent out v-13 as a courtesy to the reviewers

OK, thanks.  But I'm really unclear what you want the reviewers to do with
it.

There seems to be no point in continung with the review of -12 as if
nothing has happened.  My assumption was that you decided to go with a new
approach to security in -13 and wanted the review to proceed on that basis,
as Spencer indicated should happen given that -13 substantially changed
what was in -12.

If that isn't right, it would be best if you supply a -14 that has the
document that you would like to get reviewed as the basis for WGLC and if
not tell the working group that the document is now no longer ready for
WGLC review.






On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 4:00 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> There is a need to adress the issue of a last call for flex-files-13.
>
> I previously suggested extending the -12 LC to encompass the -13 and
> ending on 8/21, but Spencer on 8/8 responded:.
>
> > Thanks for the suggestion, Dave.  However, we will let the timer run on
> the current last call (ends on Friday).
>
> > Once that is complete, we will start another last call on the version of
> the I-D that is available then.
>
> Since that last call ended on 8/11, the version available now is -13.so we
> have to start that new last call.
>
>
>
> Wait, I would have held off shipping a v-13 if I had known it reset the
> last call.
>
> I sent out v-13 as a courtesy to the reviewers.
>
>
>
>
> > Note that this is always the case - if there has been enough change
> during a last call to warrant another round, then we do another last call.
> Not a big deal.
>
> I think it is pretty clear that there has been enough change.  If there is
> anyone who disagrees, please speak up..
>
> The only remaIning issue is the the end date.  I previously proposed a
> two-week last call period to enable me to do
> a comprehensive review.  Others might want to focus on the security
> changes in -13 but I skipped a comprehensive
> review of -12 because it was always pretty clear there would have to be a
> -13.
>
> Two weeks from today would be 8/29.  However, it may be simpler to make
> the end date the following Fridiay, which is 9/1.
> Is Tom and the rest of the working group OK with that end date for the -13
> WGLC?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:26 PM, spencer shepler <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion, Dave.  However, we will let the timer run on
>> the current last call (ends on Friday).
>>
>> Once that is complete, we will start another last call on the version of
>> the I-D that is available then.
>>
>> Note that this is always the case - if there has been enough change
>> during a last call to warrant another round, then we do another last call.
>> Not a big deal.
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:16 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't see reviewing this by 8/11.  I think we will need to reset the
>>> WGLC clock.
>>>
>>> I thibk it should be extended  to 8/21 to give us two weeks to review
>>> the new draft.  Other opinions?
>>>
>>> In any case, Spencer S should announce a new date, so everybody is in
>>> sync.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a result of the earlier reviews in the WGLC and a desire for an
>>>> update by said reviewers.
>>>>
>>>> > On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:00 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>> directories.
>>>> > This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 WG of
>>>> the IETF.
>>>> >
>>>> >        Title           : Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout
>>>> >        Authors         : Benny Halevy
>>>> >                          Thomas Haynes
>>>> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13.txt
>>>> >       Pages           : 40
>>>> >       Date            : 2017-08-07
>>>> >
>>>> > Abstract:
>>>> >   The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows a separation between
>>>> >   the metadata (onto a metadata server) and data (onto a storage
>>>> >   device) for a file.  The flexible file layout type is defined in
>>>> this
>>>> >   document as an extension to pNFS which allows the use of storage
>>>> >   devices in a fashion such that they require only a quite limited
>>>> >   degree of interaction with the metadata server, using already
>>>> >   existing protocols.  Client side mirroring is also added to provide
>>>> >   replication of files.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/
>>>> >
>>>> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13
>>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13
>>>> >
>>>> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>> submission
>>>> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>> >
>>>> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>>>> > [e-mail]
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>