Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 98 - NFSv4 WG meeting (soliciting agenda items)

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 23:41:00 +0100

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:16:53AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> Thirteen  days later, the document is still in MISSREF and appears not to
> have moved forward
> at all.  Maybe something has happened that I'm unaware of but it may be
> that you are still
> waiting for a response from the RFC editor.  Has there been a response yet,
> or at least some sort of an ETA provided?

Another two weeks later I've still not seen any respone since clarifying
the references.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:08:14 -0500

I've been wondering about what the correct escalation path is for
situations like this.  I think there needs to be one.

This document took a little over seven months to go from -00 to a complete
document that the working group was satisfied with.  Then it took about
fifteen months to get to this point and we have no idea when the document
will be published.  Is this inevitable and, if not, what can we do to
prevent repetitions that might dissuade others from taking on tasks such as
Christoph has done?

Perhaps the editor is sick or in the middle of a family crisis of some
sort, but if so, someone should be getting back to Christoph with an
alternate plan to address the required issues in a timely fashion.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:16:47 -0800

I have responded on the RFC editor thread. Will also follow-up with Spencer
D.

Spencer

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:31:08 -0800

The RFC Editor has responded and the I-D will be moving to AUTH48 within
the next week.

Spencer

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:16 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> I have responded on the RFC editor thread. Will also follow-up with
> Spencer D.
>
> Spencer
>