Re: [nfsv4] [EXTERNAL] Proposed charter changes

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:15 AM Tom Talpey <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The second sentence of the first paragraph is missing the word “extended”
> (after “incrementally”).
>

Oops.


>
>
> In the second paragraph, the “lower-level” term might be better as
> “lower-layer, for example transport”.
>

That's better.


>
>
> Will we work with irresponsible working groups? :-) (Tom ducks)
>
>
I'm not sure whether we will or we won't.  It's just that the charter
really can't ask us to do that.

>
>
> *From:* David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:04 AM
> *To:* Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>; Tom Talpey <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* NFSv4 <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Proposed charter changes
>
>
>
> As discussed previously, the working group will adopt Tom's personal rddp
> extension draft.
>
>
>
> With regard to the charter, I think the proposal below would clarify how
> we deal with extension proposals that are of interest to us, but are not,
> strictly speaking, extensions to NFSv4.
>
>
>
> Specifically I propose replacing the second paragraph of the extensions
> section which now reads:
>
>
>
> Similarly, associated ONC protocol components that have a versioning/
>
> extension framework can be incrementally extended, when necessary.
>
>
>
> By the following two-paragraph replacement:
>
>
>
> In dealing with needed extensions to areas that underlay NFSv4, the
> working group's role will depend on the specific area needing extension.
> In the case of associated ONC protocol components, those that have a
> versioning/extension framework can be incrementally, when necessary.
>
>
>
> In the case of lower-level facilities of particular importance to NFSv4,
> the working group will work with the responsible working group to make sure
> needed extensions are available.  In cases in which there is no responsible
> working group, it can help develop the necessary extension itself.
>
>