Re: [nfsv4] 3530bis Issue 39: Clarification on renewing sequence IDs

[Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 19, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Spencer Shepler wrote:

> 
> While publishing additions to the WG alias in xml is fine
> with me, please ensure that it is somewhat readable.
> 
> Also, take care not to use github as the publishing mechanism.  I-Ds are
> the place to capture reasonable interim versions of the I-D.
> 
> Spencer
> 

Agreed, just like the 4.1 editors used the nfsv4-editor site to maintain the
source and published the drafts as an I-D. What I did with rfc3530 was to
publish the draft first as an I-D and then to check in a copy of the text file
to github. This allowed the make process to be able to generate consistent
diffs against the published versions.

Without thinking too much, I envision the first draft to be submitted before the
interim meeting and the second draft in time for IETF 80 in Prague.

And just like the 3530bis work, the proper readable format for the xml 
is in the framework adopted for the NFSv4.1 editing process. I have no
plans to deviate from what has been working for us.

https://github.com/loghyr/NFSv4.2

is the initial port of the NFSv4.1 xml to the NFSv4.2 xml. As the README
clearly states, only the XDR xml is currently making. I'll start putting the
framework in place for the specification draft this weekend.