Re: [nfsv4] migration-issues-14

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

Good point.  I've looked at this for mv1 and have decided to
rework the Introduction in the next iteration and delete the
reference to I-D.nfsv4-migration-issues.

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:37 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This mail follows up on the recent submission of
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues-14.  Although the main motivation for
> this submission was to keep the document from expiring, the new draft does
> have some significant additions that I'd like to call people's attention to:
> >       • I've aded a new section entitled Further Work Needed, which
> discusses. among other things, the issues around following up with
> appropriate standards-track documents.  At the time -13 was written and at
> IETF99, this was left uncertain.  The new section considers a number of
> alternatives and concludes that the appropriate path forward is to develop
> documents based on draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update and
> draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update.
> >       • There is a new Security Considerations section, which is
> compatible with the (more detailed) corresponding sections of
> draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00 and draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update-
> 01.
> > With regard to -14, I'd like people to Review That Fine Document :-) and
> let me know about anything  you think is wrong, missing, or not as clear as
> it should be.  Note that the working group has a milestone to get to WGLC
> for this document by 6/2018, although we might be able to get this done
> earlier.
> >
> > As part of that revew, I'd like people to be thinking about the plan for
> these documents going forward.  If you have issues to address or
> alternatives to propose, pleae bring them to the group's attention.  We
> will have to address this issue when it is proposed to convert the personal
> drafts to working group items, but it would be better to get clarity on
> this earlier
> >
> > At IETF 101, I hope we'll have rhe opportnity to review progess on all
> of the documents in this group and consider the question of the  eventual
> disposition of draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues.  For me, the relevant
> issue with regard to this question is whether we will want to devote time
> to making this into an RFC when this might well result in a documemt nobody
> will ever read.   We are pretty sure implementers will read the
> standards-track documents for v4.0 and v4.1 but like to hear from the
> working group about  whether people think there might be people reading an
> RFC based on draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues once the standards-track
> documents are available.
>
> One issue we will have if nfsv4-migration-issues is destined to
> be archived is that mv0 and possibly mv1 both cite it. If those
> citations are valuable to the other content in those documents,
> then nfsv4-migration-issues needs to be preserved as an RFC.
> Otherwise, the citations need to be removed before mv0 and mv1
> move forward.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>