Subject: [nfsv4] Drafts waiting for write-up

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 07:10:02 -0500

This is a friendly reminder of the need to provide write-ups for:

   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning
   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs
   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask

Given that the period since consensus was declared for these (on 12/19)
has coincided with the holidays, a nag mail at this point might be thought
premature.  I recognize that the write-ups  might be delayed for various
holiday-related reasons.

I'm sending this now mainly because you have previously indicated that a
lack of nag mails might be interpreted by you as indicating that the task in
question is not important and so I'm worried that these might wind being
indefinitely deferred as more pressing items appear on your to-do list.

I want to point out that these documents are important and that the work
already done by the authors cannot be appropriately considered until you
provide the necessary write-up.  You won't be getting further nag mails from
me until 1/18.

Thank for  your work so far on these.  Hope you have a great 2017.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:27:29 -0800

Hi, David.

I am waiting on an update to be submitted for the "umask" I-D before
completing the shepherding write-up for that one.

Still reviewing the versioning I-D and that should be done in the next few
days.

Also, I need all the authors to, via separate email to me, affirm that any
IP disclosures have been completed on these drafts if necessary.

Spencer

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:10 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: [email-masked] (J. Bruce Fields)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:26:58 -0500

> completing the shepherding write-up for that one.

Whoops, OK, if I get that done next week will I be missing any
deadlines?

--b.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:29:27 -0800

You aren't missing any deadlines that I am aware of....  I-D deadlines are
self-imposed at this point in the process.

Spencer

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:26 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > > lack of nag mails might be interpreted by you as indicating that the
> task
> > > in

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:38:53 -0500

Only self-imposed ones. Having it next week would be great.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:42:18 -0500

As two weeks have gone by since first raising this, it is appropriate to
again remind people of the status of these documents::

   - With regard to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning nothing has changed in the
   past two weeks.  While Spencer, on 1/4, said, "Still reviewing the
   versioning I-D and that should be done in the next few days", he has
   neither indicated any issues that need to be resolved nor produced the
   requested write-up.  -09 was submitted on 12/19 and the IPR statement he
   requested was sent on 1/4.   It appears that Spencer has missed his
   self-imposed deadline and we need to hear from him about how this work can
   go forward.  I'll be following up with more frequent nag mails to ensue
   that Spencer does not assume that the absence of followup means that this
   is indefinitely deferable.
   - With regard to draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask, it appears that Bruce has
   missed the self-imposed  deadline of submitting the new draft early in
   January.  From his statement, "Whoops, OK, if I get that done next week
   will I be missing any deadlines?", I'm going to be assuming that his new
   self-imposed deadline is 1/20.  I'll be following up early next week to
   make sure that Spencer gets both the new draft and the IPR material that he
   needs to produce the writeup and allow this to go forward into AD
   evaluation together with at or about the same time as the versioning
   document.
   - With regard to draft-ietf-xattrs, the authors have not yet submitted a
   new draft that addresses the issues that arose during WGLC.  As I
   understand things, there are no substantive issues remaining and this is
   simply a question of getting the needed edits done. I'm not sure whether
   they have provided the IPR statement that Spencer requested but this does
   need to be done.  It isn't clear whether they have missed a self-imposed
   deadline, since, if I recall correctly, they indicated that the new draft
   would be done* around *the middle of January.  I think we need to hear
   from the authors with a proposed date for submission of the draft (i.e. a
   self-imposed deadline).  It would  be best if this were before the end of
   January.  In that case, handling these three documents together should not
   pose any difficulties, assuming the needed shepherding writeups are
   forthcoming.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > > provide the necessary write-up.  You won't be getting further nag
>> mails
>> > > from
>> > > me until 1/18.
>> > >

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:59:00 -0500

Once you're over your jet lag, could you deal with the shepherding writeup
for draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09?  On 1/4, you said that it "should be
done in the next few days" and it appears your travel has interfered with
that.  In any case, we might as well get started right away on the
important job of burying Spencer D. in AD Evaluation work :-).

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:42 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    - With regard to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning nothing has changed in
>    the past two weeks.  While Spencer, on 1/4, said, "Still reviewing the
>    - With regard to draft-ietf-xattrs, the authors have not yet submitted
>    a new draft that addresses the issues that arose during WGLC.  As I

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:36:01 -0800

Apologies that my intent wasn't clear.  I prefer to shepherd the 3 I-Ds
forward together even though there isn't a reference co-dependency in place.

So, yes, will get the shepherding document in place but would like to see
the other I-Ds updated as per your previous comments.

Spencer

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:59 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>    - With regard to draft-ietf-xattrs, the authors have not yet
>>    submitted a new draft that addresses the issues that arose during WGLC.  As
>>    I understand things, there are no substantive issues remaining and this is
>>    would be done* around *the middle of January.  I think we need to
>>    hear from the authors with a proposed date for submission of the draft
>>    (i.e. a self-imposed deadline).  It would  be best if this were before the
>>    end of January.  In that case, handling these three documents together
>>    should not pose any difficulties, assuming the needed shepherding writeups
>>    are forthcoming.
>>
>>
>>>> > > lack of nag mails might be interpreted by you as indicating that
>>>> the task
>>>> > > in

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:49:12 -0500

As Spencer S. wants to bury Spencer D in AD Evaluation work in one big
document deluge, the authors of the umask and xattr documents need to get
those documents  (and the IPR stuff already requested) submitted or nothing
versioning-related will go forward.  Until then, our AD will get to relax.

Once our AD manages to dig himself out of the AD Evaluation document pile,
I don't see the point of insisting on waiting if there turns out to be some
problem with one of these documents that takes a while to resolve.  My
preference would  be to go forward as long as we have versioning and one
extension document document ready, and not allow this transition (to an
extension model) to be artificially delayed in order to ensure that these
documents come out all at once.

Of course the decision to request IETF Last Call for a document is Spencer
D's and my advice to him would be not to have everything wait for one
lagging document, assuming that he is still willing to talk to me after
I've schemed so assiduously to bury him in work.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:36 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Once you're over your jet lag, could you deal with the shepherding
>> writeup for draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09?  On 1/4, you said that it
>> "should be done in the next few days" and it appears your travel has
>> interfered with that.  In any case, we might as well get started right away
>> on the important job of burying Spencer D. in AD Evaluation work :-).
>>

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:52:42 -0800

Thanks for the suggestion, Dave.  As shepherd and WG co-chair, it is my
preference to have the documents move forward together for AD review.

The umask and xattr documents are not that large and the amount of work
needed to update is minor.  I am sure they are forthcoming shortly.

Spencer

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:49 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:36 PM, spencer shepler <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> As two weeks have gone by since first raising this, it is appropriate
>>>> to again remind people of the status of these documents::
>>>>

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:53:17 -0500

Just to clarify, I've already indicated, in my mail to the authors, that
your preference needs to be accommodated and I expect that it will be be.

Our potential disagreement concerns what might happen later in the process,
if Spencer D. finds issues that need to be addressed before requesting IETF
Last Call.  It is annoying, but it is his job, after all.

At that point, it is likely that we will make different recommendations to
Spencer D about whether to hold up all the documents to wait for the one
with issues, particularly if the delay goes on for weeks.  Beyond the fact
of the extra delay, my concern would be that we night be sending the wrong
message to the IESG by treating the batching of these documents as a
requirement rather than a scheduling happenstance,   The message of this
work is that individual extensions  can and should be considered
independently and we don't want to undercut that message,

> The umask and xattr documents are not that large and the amount of work
needed to update is minor.

Right, but that raises the issue of why they are not done yet

>  I am sure they are forthcoming shortly.

Color me skeptical.

Note that at this stage in the process, the only deadlines we have are
self-imposed ones.  As of now:

   - xatttr has missed one self-imposed deadline
   - umask has missed two self-imposed deadlines

One could harangue the authors about this but I don't see the point.  All
these people are juggling to-do lists.  In a situation in which multiple
drafts are being batched, it is natural for the authors of one document to
decide that it is not worth working on something that will not, by itself,
advance the process and that other work is  more important.  Of course,
authors of both documents can adopt this view leading to a lack of
progress..

The only way I can see to accommodate Spencer S's preference for a
three-document flock to shepherd is if the authors of these two documents
communicate privately and arrive at a joint self-imposed deadline that they
are all willing to commit to meeting and let the Spencers and the working
group know what it is.  Once this deadline is announced and the first of
these documents submitted, I expect the other to follow quickly, whether
the self-imposed deadline is met or not.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:52 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Once our AD manages to dig himself out of the AD Evaluation document
>> pile, I don't see the point of insisting on waiting if there turns out to
>> be some problem with one of these documents that takes a while to resolve.
>> My preference would  be to go forward as long as we have versioning and one
>> Of course the decision to request IETF Last Call for a document is
>> Spencer D's and my advice to him would be not to have everything wait for
>> one lagging document, assuming that he is still willing to talk to me after
>>> So, yes, will get the shepherding document in place but would like to
>>> see the other I-Ds updated as per your previous comments.
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>>>>    - With regard to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning nothing has changed
>>>>>    in the past two weeks.  While Spencer, on 1/4, said, "Still reviewing the
>>>>>>> > > provide the necessary write-up.  You won't be getting further
>>>>>>> nag mails
>>>>>>> > > from
>>>>>>> > > me until 1/18.
>>>>>>> > >

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:26:25 -0500

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:53:17AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> these people are juggling to-do lists.

Yeah, but it's easy to lose track of the to-do lists.  I don't mind the
occasional harangue.  Still hoping to get back to that soon, it really
just needs a half-day at most I think.

--b.

> In a situation in which multiple

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:18:24 -0500

I don't think you would be OK with a "harangue". Look up the definition.

I'm any case, I'm not prepared to deliver one, even though the polite
reminder approach doesn't seem to be working very well. Let me do my best
to explain the situation.

It is clear that, as you and Spencer have pointed out, there is not much
work to be done here. The problem is that nobody knows when it will be done
and that, if that situation goes on indefinitely, our attempt to change the
nfsv4 extension model will have failed.

It appears that we have not prepared ourselves for the change in
responsibilities that go along with the new extension model.  We no longer
have Tom as the designated fall guy to deal with the issues that arise in
getting to a finished draft.  Now, if the authors do not do that work,
their feature will be delayed, or if things go on long enough, die.

In addition, Spencer's preference for doing these three documents together
has raised the stakes.  Now, a delay by one set of authors will delay other
features as well as their own.  Now all the authors have to produce their
needed drafts or things will stay where they are.

As you pointed out, it is easy to forget things on your to-do list.
Deadlines (or target dates if you prefer) are a device to help ensure you
eventually are reminded that something has been forgotten too many times.
When you get near the date, you naturally move things up in your list and
eventually, people will remind you, politely at first, that you have not
done what you have committed to do.

I think we need a target date to help drive the process.  The actual date
is not as important as simply agreeing that there is a (self-imposed)
deadline and treating it seriously.  I much prefer "It will be done by the
end of March" to "It should be done next week".

For reasons I've already explained, I think we are best off with the two
sets of authors agreeing on a joint deadline, but if that is not possible,
each set of authors could post its own.

On Jan 25, 2017 9:26 AM, "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:59 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:42 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Noveck <
> [email-masked]>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> > Still reviewing the versioning I-D and that should be done in
> the
> > >>>>>>> next few
> > >>>>>>> > days.
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > Also, I need all the authors to, via separate email to me,
> affirm
> > >>>>>>> that any
> > >>>>>>> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:10 AM, David Noveck <
> [email-masked]>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> > > Given that the period since consensus was declared for these
> (on
> > >>>>>>> 12/19)
> > >>>>>>> > > has coincided with the holidays, a nag mail at this point
> might
> > >>>>>>> be thought
> > >>>>>>> > > premature.  I recognize that the write-ups  might be delayed
> for
> > >>>>>>> various
> > >>>>>>> > > holiday-related reasons.
> > >>>>>>> > >
> > >>>>>>> > > I want to point out that these documents are important and
> that
> > >>>>>>> the work
> > >>>>>>> > > already done by the authors cannot be appropriately
> considered
> > >>>>>>> until you

---

From: Manoj Naik <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:58:36 +0000

I’ve posted an update to the xattr I-D that addresses all the comments noted in the review. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs/

Manoj.

From: nfsv4 <[email-masked]> on behalf of spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:36 PM
To: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Drafts waiting for write-up

Apologies that my intent wasn't clear.  I prefer to shepherd the 3 I-Ds forward together even though there isn't a reference co-dependency in place.

So, yes, will get the shepherding document in place but would like to see the other I-Ds updated as per your previous comments.

Spencer

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:59 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Once you're over your jet lag, could you deal with the shepherding writeup for draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09?  On 1/4, you said that it "should be done in the next few days" and it appears your travel has interfered with that.  In any case, we might as well get started right away on the important job of burying Spencer D. in AD Evaluation work :-).

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:42 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
As two weeks have gone by since first raising this, it is appropriate to again remind people of the status of these documents::

  *   With regard to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning nothing has changed in the past two weeks.  While Spencer, on 1/4, said, "Still reviewing the versioning I-D and that should be done in the next few days", he has neither indicated any issues that need to be resolved nor produced the requested write-up.  -09 was submitted on 12/19 and the IPR statement he requested was sent on 1/4.   It appears that Spencer has missed his self-imposed deadline and we need to hear from him about how this work can go forward.  I'll be following up with more frequent nag mails to ensue that Spencer does not assume that the absence of followup means that this is indefinitely deferable.
  *   With regard to draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask, it appears that Bruce has missed the self-imposed  deadline of submitting the new draft early in January.  From his statement, "Whoops, OK, if I get that done next week will I be missing any deadlines?", I'm going to be assuming that his new self-imposed deadline is 1/20.  I'll be following up early next week to make sure that Spencer gets both the new draft and the IPR material that he needs to produce the writeup and allow this to go forward into AD evaluation together with at or about the same time as the versioning document.
  *   With regard to draft-ietf-xattrs, the authors have not yet submitted a new draft that addresses the issues that arose during WGLC.  As I understand things, there are no substantive issues remaining and this is simply a question of getting the needed edits done. I'm not sure whether they have provided the IPR statement that Spencer requested but this does need to be done.  It isn't clear whether they have missed a self-imposed deadline, since, if I recall correctly, they indicated that the new draft would be done around the middle of January.  I think we need to hear from the authors with a proposed date for submission of the draft (i.e. a self-imposed deadline).  It would  be best if this were before the end of January.  In that case, handling these three documents together should not pose any difficulties, assuming the needed shepherding writeups are forthcoming.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Only self-imposed ones. Having it next week would be great.

On Jan 12, 2017 1:27 PM, "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

--b.

> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:10 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> > [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>