Re: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Andy,

This draft was approved on the telechat yesterday, but I still had two
questions from Ben's comments after looking at the diffs for 09-11 (below).
The other responses seem to be handled.

Please let me know what you think.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 30 Aug 2016, at 13:28, Adamson, Andy wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 2016, at 2:11 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/stat
>>> ement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I am a little bit confused about the purpose of this draft.
>>> My confusion
>>> is probably related to Brian's Gen-ART comments.
>>>
>>
>> OK - did you read the response? I case you have not, here is portion of
>> the response that addresses the SP vrs BCP concern.
>>
>> —————
>> This latest round of comments - including the SecDir review from Russ
>> Housley shows that there is still an impedence mis-match between the
>> title/abstract and the intended status of Standards Track versus an
>> Informational draft or best practices.
>>
>> I feel that the use of "Guidelines" in the title, and "guidance" in the
>> abstract point to an Informational draft rather than a Standards track.
>>
>> This draft is a Proposed Standard (not an Informational or BCP) because
>> the MUST and REQUIRED noted in section 6 of the doc are absolute
>> requirements for an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space to work. These can
>> not be BCP as an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space will _not_ work without
>> these requirements.
>>
>> I have completed a draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10 with the
>> following changes:
>>
>> 1) The title to be changed from
>>
>> "Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Guidelines"
>>
>> to
>>
>> "Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Requirements"
>>
>>
>> 2) The first sentence in the abstract (and in the introduction) to be
>> changed from
>>
>>   This document provides guidance on the deployment of the NFSv4
>>   protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
>>   environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains.
>>
>> to
>>   This document presents requirements on the deployment of the NFSv4
>>   protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
>>   environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains.
>>
>> —————
>>
>> to which Brian responded:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 7:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for version -10. I appreciate the clarification to the title etc.
>>
>> (All the same, a BCP is just as mandatory as a Draft Standard. But it's
>> a judgment call, of course.)
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian Carpenter
>>
>
> I read that, but it didn't answer my question about _what_ the
> requirements applied to. But you address it below...
>
>
>
>>> Specifically, who/what do the normative requirements in section 6 apply
>>> to. Are these implementation requirements or deployment requirements?
>>>
>>
>> They are deployment requirements - which I feel is very clear.
>>
>
> To put a finer point on it, do you think an implementer can write the code
> for a multi-domain nfsv4 service without reading this document? For
> example, are the identifier mapping requirements strictly deployment issues
> without impact on the code?


I am also curious about this ...


>
>
>
>> If
>>> the former, should this update any of the nfsv4 RFCs?
>>>
>>
>> The NFSv4 WG has decided to not update the 600+ page NFSv4 RFCs for
>> issues such as this.
>>
>
> Just to be clear, I did not suggest a revision of those RFCs. Just an
> "Updates" header on this one. (But whether it matters depends on the
> previous question.)


... which means I'm also curious about this!

Thanks,

Spencer


>
>
>
>> If deployment, then
>>> I also wonder why this is PS and not BCP.
>>>
>>
>> Because the AD made the judgment call and has decided to make it a PS
>> which is his choice.  I stated my opinion which is PS, and if the AD wants
>> to make this a BCP, OK.
>>
>>
> Sure. These were non-binding comments.
>
> Ben.
>
>