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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Fri, 26 May 2017 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9E412E055; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rwTuq6K766KH; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EEE612E057; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p143so2988753yba.2; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qn6PcqZUQJJxji/NIms016KrsxPgQWYBCBZn8EYC7RU=; b=GSkNeLm/gS534zwNbIzJPnOS11v5a7YRHFdp0ux8SyrEl8UfOajlVgVm7Wi0DKfJ/L xjrcFmPEl5s0wjBk6kd/er99qwldMEGsPyecylWU2LDkEW+vSdQdp1nbvhmbm1NXzGhU j/+/TpCH7qWKl0FS33S01XwB+oXbRQHNH/dVebDA/BRZJZ+IazlFM6MGFaLa4obM6kYU aRQycLw3fuw/Du6yn5Xggf95/9IcbGHhSpMdK9Ceo7/LgR20MhvFZIScJY/QFVZUGSp2 PD1h+YPp7+TJmP5Na1TsZiSwbyw8m6ALmctHsFrAo0cKX0PoMBQG1E/3WZIp3Fe0pzyO CW6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qn6PcqZUQJJxji/NIms016KrsxPgQWYBCBZn8EYC7RU=; b=MuRGb3ZmkZa8tCLZSMpovfRX7LibXb5zRb3CqbBDfeqwLXQ3de0bUZ74K2rUNX/Q+L YNmpnDMA8agbRvH4lMxKp8KnaQiCZKlKzJXpDZ6OxEyVVSqB6WZwudJi3tIVHcovMNKZ ba2r1oIlN9sapMSmBjNVUS3YtWdj6PojeS4Adc+onO4aR+OoQAM2K7KyfSZR7cVFGLB5 K0cvgsjjnC3hKYo1p7UPDmFw7cMraHY4gNjWZNp04j1zrprIQF4iIe5Tsn1EUT1x0pin C7N9ZAALlmgi4qAoa0w8RZtdbDI5jiHKNrphxXto1Ai3UzjrFYZfGCWTpbN/7h2D7LYL OYZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCxeea3YaZ6UJL7s9NA0BVK8QTYmcd47xIhVlVrm5IjHcDNpXqL kAcMS9Uc67bxFkHZgQ1xBeUnInR3+w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r68mr14690306ybf.51.1495811418675; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:10:18 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: David Noveck <>
Cc: Ben Campbell <>, Spencer Shepler <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114ea91042fae305506ebc7f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 15:10:23 -0000

Just for the record ...

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:52 PM, David Noveck <> 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.



> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Ben Campbell <> 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
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Out of curiosity, why isn't this material more appropriate as a BCP?