[nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

Working Group Last Call for the following documents, which started on
11/10, ended on 12/2:

   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning (initiated on -07)
   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs (initiated on -03)
   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask (initiated on -02)

As the purpose of WGLC is to elicit comments, it is natural  that those
comments prompt a set of changes before producing a document that is ready
to go forward to the IESG with.  I don't think there is any official state
for the period between the end of WGLC, and the production of a documernt
that incorporates WG feedback.  I think our practice has been to simply
leave the document in the WGLC State until it is ready to go forward.

In this particular case, the situation is complicated by the fact that the
transition to WGLC was not recorded on 11/10, as it should have been.
Unless there is a way to do this retroactively (unlikely), the Datatracker
history is going to be misleading.  Although one would like this history to
be accurate, people will just have to be aware that this kind of
discrepancy exists.  This will probably only turn out to be a real problem
for potential future PhD candidates whose thesis topic involves the
history of file access protocols.

In any case, I believe that, as far as my document is concerened,
versioning-08 is what we should be going forward with.  I've already sent
out an email detailing how recent comments were addressed.  In order to
give people time to state any objections or remaining issues, I will wait
until 12/9 before requesting that we go forward with this document.  I
assume that other document authors will post their response to comments
(and submit a new version if necessary) within the next few weeks and we
will consider the period of time up until that point as effectively part of
WGLC, even though new WGLC comments would not be appropriate after 12/2.

As discussed at IETF96, there is a general feeling that the IESG would do
well to consider these documents together.  However, I don't think they
need to be tightly synchronized.  Once we have a set of documents ready to
go forward, we can discuss arrangements to have them considered by the
IESG.