Re: [nfsv4] Thinking about an RFC5661bis.

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> While not volunteering, I do have a git repository for this work already
started - last entry was 4-5 years ago.

> I believe it also had some of the errata applied.

This could be helpful if there is an .xml file that could be diffed against
the .xml for the existing RFC5661.

> And again, the reason why we never started is because it is a lot of work
- both to edit and review.

Everything we do is work, but I don't think it is as much work as you think
given the work already done in the documents published so far and soon to
be published.

> Hadn’t we discussed breaking it down into more manageable chunks?

We have have had such discussions, but we never started seriously going
down that road.  That's probably because that is also a lot of work.

> Many smaller documents (like we did for versioning)

Versioning was a special case common to all NFSv4 versions.

> and then one which stitched them together?

I don't hear anyone volunteering to do that either.

If you compare the work to update RFC5666 to reflect existing erratta and
the RFCs which update it with the work to convert NFSv4.1 to an entirely
new documentatIion philosoply, the latter is almost certain to be more
work.   Also, readers are used to the current philosophy and it would take
effort to manage the transition.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:06 PM Tom Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While not volunteering, I do have a git repository for this work already
> started - last entry was 4-5 years ago.
>
> I believe it also had some of the errata applied.
>
> And again, the reason why we never started is because it is a lot of work
> - both to edit and review.
>
> Hadn’t we discussed breaking it down into more manageable chunks? Many
> smaller documents (like we did for versioning) and then one which stitched
> them together?