[nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?
David Noveck <email@example.com> Mon, 05 December 2016 17:06 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C925129BC9 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:06:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rhcC2AYQrr5 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D47F3129BD6 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:03:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id y198so347624959oia.1 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:03:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zNaKOBFVOPNGXgXg6RVkk7ZA8qB1DKD+8sPZ5GAm5t4=; b=YLWCsYoa2nHZWPcsLPWB2xrXfsE64xLAI7LNdqcyLOi281F/gLouaSu2Ut4pCDwcpG UJ0FfOy0t/G2efhpS8DIw9TnP3OS2cinj5kYcgkbKwOPKiD6OcD+DUob0x2lDpWT+/Ld vZVCX76XRc9monc65IqXRm/ozqx0V5DjWFz0zKnMPBdoToWROkflBb7BpVBb7OSQXWGR whaD/ej95LzTFZoMs7hIWG1ESvj4VwRNB7DRpS5EtjHgj2cz/xkMYEkaaCOcibJry0G7 JZwDa+pqghk5HOt3ndul2Q4yzqrz0Dqt5PIwjXCyVcNLq8EulJO7DdXLE/D6VNUU0r0e yNlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zNaKOBFVOPNGXgXg6RVkk7ZA8qB1DKD+8sPZ5GAm5t4=; b=fln6zZA5bSRkyA48NsPNDvVyL8SgpT5+IqWZs6ocI1rmlkthozgUpUE292boYx2iF1 z8cPv+jUWnyXz5OPYU86dB5olof6IxuFSaZBkOF6leZUys3zBSKfHnsWkesWRdH6cbdT ex+tGPMnGY2D0+SOSMn3xoXaRrDJZZaiUchrIe/0vlFMEAIzR3D+GDovhcdL6h6Sh2ej f4uTeL8JXlKNBCQKPx5Agl6G2b2txqkEwNwSo86MihapYNQCE2KxUjpXO3FufYvxrAN6 LLToVXrSSYuIwAPA0Kx3VrUp9DYb+oxaxYaFTLLm2TlRNlkDEBBUulhvK4nq+uI7v69r H0cA==
X-Received: by 10.202.49.142 with SMTP id x136mr27027062oix.126.1480957408699; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.137.202 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:03:28 -0800 (PST)
From: David Noveck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:03:28 -0500
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Marc Eshel <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cdcaa45ea520542ec44a9
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:06:21 -0000
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.