Subject: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:02:56 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: 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-versioning/

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

Out of curiosity, why isn't this material more appropriate as a BCP?

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 19:52:22 -0400

> Out of curiosity, why isn't this material more appropriate as a BCP?

I'm not sure.  RFC 1818 (BCP 1) is not very specific about what is and
isn't appropriate in a BCP and I haven't been able to find any other
material on the matter.

One problem with publishing this as anything other than a standards-track
document is that this document's function is to replace the existing
treatment
of NFSv4 versioning, which consists of eliminating the existing rules which
only allowed minor versioning and establishing new, more flexible rules.

It might be that the new rules could be established in other than a
standards
track document (e.g. a BCP).  However,  since the rules to be overridden
were done in a standards-track document, I don't see how they an be
invalidated/overridden in anything other than a standards-track document.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:10:18 -0400

Just for the record ...

> invalidated/overridden in anything other than a standards-track document.

I'm going through the comments for this draft, and I'm fine with approving
it as standards-track for the reasons David provided, but I would have been
OK with approving it as BCP if that's what the working group had sent me.

My inclination is to leave this draft as standards-track, but Ben's
question was a good one, and if anyone feels strongly that it should be a
BCP, please say something really soon.

My understanding is, switching to BCP at this point

   - would NOT require a new Last Call, because the process requirements
   are the same for BCPs and for standards-track, but
   - would likely confuse members of the community who are vague about
   whether BCPs can update standards-track document, whether that would be a
   downref for other documents, etc.

so I don't think there's a reason to switch to BCP at this point.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:08:36 -0500

> 
> On May 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> My inclination is to leave this draft as standards-track, but Ben's question was a good one, and if anyone feels strongly that it should be a BCP, please say something really soon.

For the record, I do not feel strongly about it.

Ben.