Subject: [nfsv4] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-nfsv4-05-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:25:29 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-nfsv4-05-00: Block

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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nfsv4/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- "The working group is also responsible for approving changes to RPC- and
NFS-related IANA registries." I frown up the "approving" word. It sounds like
we change the IANA process here. Also, it seems like this sentence covers a
series of registries https://www.iana.org/protocols#index_N

Network File System version 4 (NFSv4)

NFSv4 ${ietf.org:CPU_ARCH} Value Registry       RFC 5661
First Come First Served
NFSv4 ${ietf.org:OS_TYPE} Value Registry        RFC 5661
First Come First Served
NFSv4 Device ID Notifications Registry  RFC 5661
Standards Action with Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler)
NFSv4 Named Attribute Definitions Registry      RFC 5661, RFC 7530
Specification Required for new registrations; updates to fields other than the
contact field require Expert Review or IESG Approval (Expert: Spencer Shepler)
NFSv4 Path Variables Registry   RFC 5661 ietf.org domain: Standards Action with
Expert Review. non-ietf.org. domain: First Come First Served. (Expert: Spencer
Shepler) NFSv4 Recallable Object Types Registry  RFC 5661 Standards Action with
Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler) pNFS Layout Types Registry      RFC 5661

So we have a mix of FCFS and Standard Action with Expert Review.
If the charter says that the WG is now responsible, what does it imply? For ex,
in terms of FCFS? What do you expect from the WG in the different situations?
Feedback? Approval? (what if the WG disagrees with the expert), Standards
Action Review? Standards Action with Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler)

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

- What are we balloting on?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nfsv4/ballot/ shows two different
pieces of information 1. Ready w/o external review (05-00) 2. Ballot question:
"Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval
without external review?" Is this a tooling issue?

- "The NFSv4 working group is chartered with vetting reported issues and
determining correctness of submitted errata." I like that approach of not only
having the area responsible for evaluating errata.

- Like in the current NFSV4 charter, you should break down the proposed
milestones in "WG Last Call" and "Submit Final" and add the intended status

- Editorial

In addition, some areas may need more concentrated work to correct the
specifications already published, to deal with unanticipated interactions
between features, or to respond to evolving IESG expectations with regard
to areas such as security.

Could we remove "IESG"? While the IESG provides guidance and sometimes enforces
rules, we should stress that the IETF is a community-based effort, as opposed
to IESG-driven effort.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:28:13 -0500

Hi, Benoit,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nfsv4/

Well, that's awkward.

I'll let Spencer (S) and the working group participants copied on this
ballot e-mail take a look at this before proposing a fix, but changing the
IANA registry procedure to insert the working group wasn't something I saw
being proposed during recharter discussion

So, we'll do the right thing (and hold onto your BLOCK position until we
figure out what that is).

Spencer

It's at least an issue with the AD who sent out the ballot text ...

Transport guys have decades of experience getting confused about whether
one signal means either of two things, whether that's "does loss mean
packet congestion or packet corruption?" or, in this case, "if I think the
charter is ready but don't agree with the ballot question about external
review, do I ballot BLOCK or Yes/No Objection?"

Of course, most ADs at least delete one of the choices before opening the
ballot ...

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

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:13:11 -0400

>  but changing the IANA registry procedure to insert the working group
wasn't something I saw being proposed during recharter discussion

I agree.  I was under the impression that Chuck, when he proposed this
text, believed,he was merely restating explicitly what was already in
effect.  While it is true that, formally speaking, the working group as
such, has no role in this process, as a practical matter, the working group
will be consulted.  For example, when Spencer S is the designated expert,
the normal expectation would be that he would consult the working group
regarding anything that was not straightforward.

I think that if anyone thought that a change in the IANA registry procedure
was being proposed, they would have pointed that out and discussed the
matter.  After all, there have been no problems with the existing
procedure.  The working group is consulted when necessary.

I think it would be best to simply delete  "The working group is also
responsible for approving changes to RPC- and
NFS-related IANA registries.".  I'd like to be sure that both Chuck and
Spencer S aare OK with that.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:41:26 -0700

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:13 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think that if anyone thought that a change in the IANA registry
> procedure was being proposed, they would have pointed that out and
> discussed the matter.  After all, there have been no problems with the
> existing procedure.  The working group is consulted when necessary.
>

Correct.  A change in IANA behavior/procedure was not the intent.

>
> > So, we'll do the right thing (and hold onto your BLOCK position until
> we figure out what that is).
>

Agreed with as proposed.

Chuck?

Spencer

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:03:23 -0700

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:41 AM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> >  but changing the IANA registry procedure to insert the working group wasn't something I saw being proposed during recharter discussion
>> 
>> I agree.  I was under the impression that Chuck, when he proposed this text, believed,he was merely restating explicitly what was already in effect.  While it is true that, formally speaking, the working group as such, has no role in this process, as a practical matter, the working group will be consulted.  For example, when Spencer S is the designated expert, the normal expectation would be that he would consult the working group regarding anything that was not straightforward.
>> 
>> I think that if anyone thought that a change in the IANA registry procedure was being proposed, they would have pointed that out and discussed the matter.  After all, there have been no problems with the existing procedure.  The working group is consulted when necessary.
> 
>> > So, we'll do the right thing (and hold onto your BLOCK position until we figure out what that is).
>> 
>> I think it would be best to simply delete  "The working group is also responsible for approving changes to RPC- and
>> NFS-related IANA registries.".  I'd like to be sure that both Chuck and Spencer S aare OK with that.
> 
> Agreed with as proposed.
> 
> Chuck?

No objection to removing the offending sentence.

> Spencer
>  
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> Hi, Benoit,
>>> 
>>> I'll let Spencer (S) and the working group participants copied on this ballot e-mail take a look at this before proposing a fix, but changing the IANA registry procedure to insert the working group wasn't something I saw being proposed during recharter discussion
>>> 
>>> So, we'll do the right thing (and hold onto your BLOCK position until we figure out what that is).
>>> 
>>> Spencer
>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Transport guys have decades of experience getting confused about whether one signal means either of two things, whether that's "does loss mean packet congestion or packet corruption?" or, in this case, "if I think the charter is ready but don't agree with the ballot question about external review, do I ballot BLOCK or Yes/No Objection?"
>>> 
>>> Of course, most ADs at least delete one of the choices before opening the ballot ...
>>>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:13:36 +0200

On 9/14/2017 11:03 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:41 AM, spencer shepler 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:13 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>>     >  but changing the IANA registry procedure to insert the working
>>     group wasn't something I saw being proposed during recharter
>>     discussion
>>
>>     I agree.  I was under the impression that Chuck, when he proposed
>>     this text, believed,he was merely restating explicitly what was
>>     already in effect.  While it is true that, formally speaking, the
>>     working group as such, has no role in this process, as a
>>     practical matter, the working group will be consulted.  For
>>     example, when Spencer S is the designated expert, the normal
>>     expectation would be that he would consult the working group
>>     procedure was being proposed, they would have pointed that out
>>     and discussed the matter.  After all, there have been no problems
>>     with the existing procedure.  The working group is consulted when
>>     necessary.
>>
>>
>>     I think it would be best to simply delete "The working group is
>>     also responsible for approving changes to RPC- and
That would obviously solve my DISCUSS.

Regards, B.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:26:27 -0500

Backing up to Benoit's original ballot, since we've been focused on his
Block, and haven't mentioned his Comments ...

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nfsv4/

This sentence is gone in 05-01.

The IESG has been talking about tooling for the general case, but Spencer
thinks the NFSv4 charter can be revised in this way without requiring
External Review (typically, that's required for new charters, but unless a
recharter is basically rebooting a working group to do something else, the
working assumption is that people who care are already following the
working group, and it's not necessary to annoy people who didn't care about
the previous version of the charter by telling them that there's a new
version that they probably don't care about either).

> having the area responsible for evaluating errata.

I also like it, and wish I could take credit for it (but I can't).

> milestones in "WG Last Call" and "Submit Final" and add the intended status

I care more about the "Submit to IESG/Request Publication" part of this,
but stating the intended status for milestones does help many working
groups along their way.

Do the right thing :-)

> rules, we should stress that the IETF is a community-based effort, as

I agree. The point is that expectations change over a time for a reason,
that's not just "we got new ADs who have time on their hands, so the IESG
should move the goal posts". This is removed in 05-01.

NFSv4 chairs, could you provide the "submit to IESG" dates for the
milestones, in addition to the "WGLC" dates you've already provided? I
think that with that, we'll be ready to announce the new charter.

Thanks to everyone for your help.

Spencer (D)

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:42:11 +0800

Dear NFSv4 Folk,

> think that with that, we'll be ready to announce the new charter.

Could you folks let me know what the updated milestones should look like? I
may have missed them ...

I'll enter them into the datatracker (or, approve them if the chairs add
them), and send the note approving the current version of the charter.

Thanks!

Spencer