[nfsv4] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

I will submit -05, with those fixes, as soon as the author tools are
working again.

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 9:38 AM Pali Rohár <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Ok, thanks for this! The still unaddressed are eid7667 and eid7669 as of
> the last rfc5662bis-04 draft.
>
> On Wednesday 18 September 2024 08:35:01 David Noveck wrote:
> > 7386 is addressed in rfc5661bis-08.   I don't know of any unaddressed
> > errata reports.for this set of documents,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 12:16 PM Pali Rohár <[e-mail]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello and thank you for information.
> > >
> > > I'm looking at it again, as I sent list of erratas in my first email
> > >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/05tLPoZl1Jh8VmUaY_nFRAmAMeA/
> > > and two of erratas eid7667 and eid7669 are for RFC 5662, the document
> > > which you are updating in this thread (XDR definitions). And another
> one
> > > is eid7386 which is for RFC 8881 (spec itself) which you referred in
> > > other email thread.
> > >
> > > I think that in this rfc5662bis document you can handle only eid7667
> and
> > > eid7669. The last one needs to go via other rfc5661/rfc8881-bis
> document
> > > update.
> > >
> > > Pali
> > >
> > > On Friday 06 September 2024 04:02:47 David Noveck wrote:
> > > > The formal status of these is "Reported" which really means they
> haven't
> > > > been reviewed yet.  Normally, the review process is triggered by an
> email
> > > > sent to the authors.  In thjs case, two of the authors are no longer
> > > active
> > > > in the IETF but since I am, there might have been an email sent to my
> > > > netapp email.  I will look but if I  missed it a year ago, it us
> probably
> > > > not recoverable now.
> > > >
> > > > There should be a way to kick off the review process without the
> email
> > > but
> > > > I'm not sure one exists.  I will send mail to ietf-action to see.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 6:03 PM Pali Rohár <
> [e-mail]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Thank you for reply and looking at it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, what is the format status of those erratas?
> > > > > I have reported year ago but they have not been reviewed yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pali
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday 05 September 2024 13:44:24 David Noveck wrote:
> > > > > > Will include these in -05.  Should be out next week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 1:30 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, I'll take a look.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, 12:28 PM Pali Rohár <
> > > [e-mail]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hello David, could you look at errata reports which I sent for
> > > > > RFC5662?
> > > > > > >> It would be nice to review them and incorporate fixed into
> new bis
> > > > > > >> document.
> > > > > > >> Pali
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thursday 05 September 2024 12:09:32 David Noveck wrote:
> > > > > > >> > IIRC, an earlier version of this draft was supposed to be
> going
> > > > > through
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > adoption call process, starting "at or before" IETF120.  If
> > > there is
> > > > > > >> some
> > > > > > >> > reason/issue explaining why it has not been adopted, I need
> to
> > > get
> > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > explanation of that so that I can address whatever issues
> exist,
> > > > > > >> allowing
> > > > > > >> > us to make progress on the respecification effort.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > This case is much better than that for the security
> document,
> > > which
> > > > > has
> > > > > > >> > lingered in the adoption-requested-but-no-response state for
> > > about
> > > > > two
> > > > > > >> > years, but we need to avoid a repetition of that
> situation,  I
> > > > > think the
> > > > > > >> > chairs need to follow up on all the documents for which
> > > adoption has
> > > > > > >> been
> > > > > > >> > requested, in a reasonable time, which has not been the
> case.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > > > >> > From: <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > >> > Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:49 AM
> > > > > > >> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > > > > > >> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > > > > > >> > To: David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > A new version of Internet-Draft
> > > > > draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > >> > been
> > > > > > >> > successfully submitted by David Noveck and posted to the
> > > > > > >> > IETF repository.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Name:     draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis
> > > > > > >> > Revision: 04
> > > > > > >> > Title:    Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version
> 1
> > > > > External
> > > > > > >> Data
> > > > > > >> > Representation Standard (XDR) Description
> > > > > > >> > Date:     2024-09-05
> > > > > > >> > Group:    Individual Submission
> > > > > > >> > Pages:    79
> > > > > > >> > URL:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04.txt
> > > > > > >> > Status:
> > > > > > >>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis/
> > > > > > >> > HTMLized:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis
> > > > > > >> > Diff:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5662bis-04
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Abstract:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >    This document provides the External Data Representation
> > > Standard
> > > > > > >> >    (XDR) description for Network File System version 4
> (NFSv4)
> > > minor
> > > > > > >> >    version 1.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >    It includes protocol extensions made as part of
> > > respecification
> > > > > > >> >    effort for minor version 1.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >    It obsoletes and replaces RFC5662.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > The IETF Secretariat
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>