Re: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Just for the record ...

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:52 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Out of curiosity, why isn't this material more appropriate as a BCP?
>
> I'm not sure.  RFC 1818 (BCP 1) is not very specific about what is and
> isn't appropriate in a BCP and I haven't been able to find any other
> material on the matter.
>
> One problem with publishing this as anything other than a standards-track
> document is that this document's function is to replace the existing
> treatment
> of NFSv4 versioning, which consists of eliminating the existing rules which
> only allowed minor versioning and establishing new, more flexible rules.
>
> It might be that the new rules could be established in other than a
> standards
> track document (e.g. a BCP).  However,  since the rules to be overridden
> were done in a standards-track document, I don't see how they an be
> invalidated/overridden in anything other than a standards-track document.
>

I'm going through the comments for this draft, and I'm fine with approving
it as standards-track for the reasons David provided, but I would have been
OK with approving it as BCP if that's what the working group had sent me.

My inclination is to leave this draft as standards-track, but Ben's
question was a good one, and if anyone feels strongly that it should be a
BCP, please say something really soon.

My understanding is, switching to BCP at this point

   - would NOT require a new Last Call, because the process requirements
   are the same for BCPs and for standards-track, but
   - would likely confuse members of the community who are vague about
   whether BCPs can update standards-track document, whether that would be a
   downref for other documents, etc.

so I don't think there's a reason to switch to BCP at this point.

Thanks,

Spencer


> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Out of curiosity, why isn't this material more appropriate as a BCP?
>>
>>
>>
>