Subject: RE: use of the issue tracker for NFSv4.1 (was Re: [nfsv4] Stuff for issue18, RECLAIM_COMPLETE)

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:02:47 -0400

> > Putting this stuff in the issue tracker is the best way to make sure

> > it doesn't get forgotten, in case it somehow falls through the
cracks 
> > given the editing that people plan to do.

> We have a different view of the use of the issue tracker so, I have 
> to comment on its intended use.

Maybe we have different views, but what you say suggests that we just
have a misunderstanding of the context of what I was saying.  

> When I conceived of using the issue tracker, it was to track the 
> existence of action items related to the development and completion 
> of the NFSv4.1 I-D. 

Exactly and that's why I made the suggestion that I did to Trond.  My
interpretation of a statement that we need to clarify ADMIN_REVOKED
or the fact that errors that no longer can happen need to be addressed
in the spec, are that these action items whose existence needs to be 
tracked.   Discussing such stuff on the list, if there is any dicussion
that ensues, is not going to ensure that it actually gets addressed
in the spec.

> I wanted to ensure that action items were not lost or forgotten and 
> that we had an "audit" trail to make sure we knew what happened.
> I also wanted to enable anyone in the working group to create an issue

> and drive it to concensus and closure.  This is meant to reduce the 
> bottleneck on any individual and make this an effort of the overall 
> working group.

> The intent was not to supplant the correct process of working group 
> discussion via this alias or the working group meetings. 

Makes sense to me.

> Therefore, any discussion of issues, resultant text or other related 
> activites must happen on the WG alias.  The issue tracker should only 
> be used for referring back to the thread of discussion in the official

> IETF email archives.  It can also be used for attaching a final
version 
> of the updated text but that is mainly for the document editor's ease 
> of tracking and incorporating changes.

Maybe the problem is a difference of opinion about Trond's comments.
They didn't seem to be related to any existing issue or to the changes
I posted, except in the sense that they were in same .xml file, and if
you change mvers_middle_errors.xml there are a lot of potential issues 
in that file that may indeed need to be adddressed but are not related
to your changes.  Trond's comments were with regard to things that he 
noticed that we should address in the spec.

> The main reason for this is that the email archives will be around.
> The issue tracker site and its data may eventually be removed when the

> document becomes a full RFC.

Theoretically, sure, but I'd hope we make an effort to keep it around.
If you have such an audit trail, it doesn't make sense to delete it.

> So, resolve the issues here.  If other issues arise, please create an 
> issue in the tracker, refer to the email archive where the issue arose

> and update the issue as it is resolved.  The one exception I see to
this 
> is where there are grammatical or other nits in document editing -- in

> those cases, it is unnecessary to burden the WG alias with the
announcement 
> of an issue.

I sort of thought of Trond's issues as nits, although a bit bigger than
a
grammatical nits, although possibly less controversial than a
grammatical
nits.

So, under the assumption that Trond's comments are too big to be
considered
nits, I suppose the conclusion is that he should mention on them on the 
alias and then, when creating an issue, point to that mail message.  I'm
OK
with that, as long as an issue exists so that we don't lose track of the
item.  The problem with simply making the comment on the working group
list
is that it will live in the archives forever but that fact doesn't help
make
sure that eventually it migrates its way into the spec.

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Shepler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: use of the issue tracker for NFSv4.1 (was Re: [nfsv4] Stuff for
issue18, RECLAIM_COMPLETE)

On Tue, Noveck, Dave wrote:
> 
> Putting this stuff in the issue tracker is the best way to make sure 
> it doesn't get forgotten, in case it somehow falls through the cracks 
> given the editing that people plan to do.

We have a different view of the use of the issue tracker so, I have to
comment on its intended use.

When I conceived of using the issue tracker, it was to track the
existence of action items related to the development and completion of
the NFSv4.1 I-D.  

I wanted to ensure that action items were not lost or forgotten and that
we had an "audit" trail to make sure we knew what happened.
I also wanted to enable anyone in the working group to create an issue
and drive it to concensus and closure.  This is meant to reduce the
bottleneck on any individual and make this an effort of the overall
working group.

The intent was not to supplant the correct process of working group
discussion via this alias or the working group meetings.

Therefore, any discussion of issues, resultant text or other related
activites must happen on the WG alias.  The issue tracker should only be
used for referring back to the thread of discussion in the official IETF
email archives.  It can also be used for attaching a final version of
the updated text but that is mainly for the document editor's ease of
tracking and incorporating changes.

The main reason for this is that the email archives will be around.
The issue tracker site and its data may eventually be removed when the
document becomes a full RFC.

So, resolve the issues here.  If other issues arise, please create an
issue in the tracker, refer to the email archive where the issue arose
and update the issue as it is resolved.  The one exception I see to this
is where there are grammatical or other nits in document editing -- in
those cases, it is unnecessary to burden the WG alias with the
announcement of an issue.

Spencer

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trond Myklebust [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:39 PM
> To: Noveck, Dave
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Stuff for issue 18, RECLAIM_COMPLETE
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:23 -0400, Noveck, Dave wrote:
> > Storing files for the text of this issue to the issue tracker since 
> > the IETF is not very friendly to non-trivial attachments.  The three

> > xml files are derived from the draft-03 files. Draft{Old,New}.txt 
> > are in I-D text format and are subsets of the v4.1 draft limited to 
> > relevant xml files.  rfc diff can be used on these two to see my 
> > changes.  I've also included DraftNew.html for the ASCII-averse.
> > Here are the links:
> 
> 
> >         mvers_middle_errors.xml
> 
> In the section on NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, could we clarify that carried

> over text from RFC3530 a little bit? A lockowner certainly cannot own 
> a delegation.
> 
> Could we document that an NFSv4.1 server should never return 
> NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID (given that sessions are now mandatory to
implement)?
> Ditto for NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE, and NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID.
> 
> Cheers,
>   Trond

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:42:47 -0500

On Wed, Noveck, Dave wrote:

....

> noticed that we should address in the spec.

My comments were meant to be taken in the general case and hence
the change in the subject line.

We are in agreement.  Discussion and closure of concensus is done
on the alias.  If an issue arises that needs to be completed for
the NFSv4.1 I-D, an item in the issue tracker needs to be created
to ensure closure.

Spencer