Subject: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:11:23 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a little bit confused about the purpose of this draft. My confusion
is probably related to Brian's Gen-ART comments.

Specifically, who/what do the normative requirements in section 6 apply
to. Are these implementation requirements or deployment requirements? If
the former, should this update any of the nfsv4 RFCs? If deployment, then
I also wonder why this is PS and not BCP.

---

From: "Adamson, Andy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:28:33 +0000

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 2:11 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

OK - did you read the response? I case you have not, here is portion of the response that addresses the SP vrs BCP concern.

—————
This latest round of comments - including the SecDir review from Russ Housley shows that there is still an impedence mis-match between the title/abstract and the intended status of Standards Track versus an Informational draft or best practices.

I feel that the use of "Guidelines" in the title, and "guidance" in the abstract point to an Informational draft rather than a Standards track.

This draft is a Proposed Standard (not an Informational or BCP) because the MUST and REQUIRED noted in section 6 of the doc are absolute requirements for an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space to work. These can not be BCP as an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space will _not_ work without these requirements.

I have completed a draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10 with the following changes:

1) The title to be changed from

"Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Guidelines"

to

"Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Requirements"

2) The first sentence in the abstract (and in the introduction) to be changed from

  This document provides guidance on the deployment of the NFSv4
  protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
  environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains.

to
  This document presents requirements on the deployment of the NFSv4
  protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
  environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains. 

—————

to which Brian responded:

On Aug 29, 2016, at 7:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for version -10. I appreciate the clarification to the title etc.

(All the same, a BCP is just as mandatory as a Draft Standard. But it's
a judgment call, of course.)

Regards
  Brian Carpenter

> to. Are these implementation requirements or deployment requirements?

They are deployment requirements - which I feel is very clear.

> If
> the former, should this update any of the nfsv4 RFCs?

The NFSv4 WG has decided to not update the 600+ page NFSv4 RFCs for issues such as this.

> If deployment, then

Because the AD made the judgment call and has decided to make it a PS which is his choice.  I stated my opinion which is PS, and if the AD wants to make this a BCP, OK.

—>Andy

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:14:06 -0500

On 30 Aug 2016, at 13:28, Adamson, Andy wrote:

>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> OK - did you read the response? I case you have not, here is portion 
> of the response that addresses the SP vrs BCP concern.
>
> —————
> This latest round of comments - including the SecDir review from Russ 
> Housley shows that there is still an impedence mis-match between the 
> title/abstract and the intended status of Standards Track versus an 
> Informational draft or best practices.
>
> I feel that the use of "Guidelines" in the title, and "guidance" in 
> the abstract point to an Informational draft rather than a Standards 
> track.
>
> This draft is a Proposed Standard (not an Informational or BCP) 
> because the MUST and REQUIRED noted in section 6 of the doc are 
> absolute requirements for an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space to 
> work. These can not be BCP as an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space 
> will _not_ work without these requirements.
>

I read that, but it didn't answer my question about _what_ the 
requirements applied to. But you address it below...

> They are deployment requirements - which I feel is very clear.

To put a finer point on it, do you think an implementer can write the 
code for a multi-domain nfsv4 service without reading this document? For 
example, are the identifier mapping requirements strictly deployment 
issues without impact on the code?

> The NFSv4 WG has decided to not update the 600+ page NFSv4 RFCs for 

Just to be clear, I did not suggest a revision of those RFCs. Just an 
"Updates" header on this one. (But whether it matters depends on the 
previous question.)

> Because the AD made the judgment call and has decided to make it a PS 
> which is his choice.  I stated my opinion which is PS, and if the AD 
> wants to make this a BCP, OK.
>

Sure. These were non-binding comments.

Ben.