Re: [nfsv4] migration-issues-14

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> 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