Subject: [nfsv4] migration-issues-14

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:37:22 -0500

This mail follows up on the recent submission of
*draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues-14*.  Although the main motivation for
this submission was to keep the document from expiring, the new draft does
have some significant additions that I'd like to call people's attention to:

   - I've aded a new section entitled *Further Work Needed*, which
   discusses. among other things, the issues around following up with
   appropriate standards-track documents.  At the time -13 was written and at
   IETF99, this was left uncertain.  The new section considers a number of
   alternatives and concludes that the appropriate path forward is to develop
   documents based on *draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update* and
   *draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update*.
   - There is a new *Security Considerations *section, which is compatible
   with the (more detailed) corresponding sections of
   *draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00* and
   *draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update-01*.

With regard to -14, I'd like people to *R*eview *T*hat *F*ine *D*ocument
:-) and let me know about anything  you think is wrong, missing, or not as
clear as it should be.  Note that the working group has a milestone to get
to WGLC for this document by 6/2018, although we might be able to get this
done earlier.

As part of that revew, I'd like people to be thinking about the plan for
these documents going forward.  If you have issues to address or
alternatives to propose, pleae bring them to the group's attention.  We
will have to address this issue when it is proposed to convert the personal
drafts to working group items, but it would be better to get clarity on
this earlier

At IETF 101, I hope we'll have rhe opportnity to review progess on all of
the documents in this group and consider the question of the  eventual
disposition of *d**raft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues*.  For me, the relevant
issue with regard to this question is whether we will want to devote time
to making this into an RFC when this might well result in a documemt nobody
will ever read.   We are pretty sure implementers will read the
standards-track documents for v4.0 and v4.1 but like to hear from the
working group about  whether people think there might be people reading an
RFC based on *d**raft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues* once the standards-track
documents are available.

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:34:57 -0500

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:37 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This mail follows up on the recent submission of draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues-14.  Although the main motivation for this submission was to keep the document from expiring, the new draft does have some significant additions that I'd like to call people's attention to:
> 	• I've aded a new section entitled Further Work Needed, which discusses. among other things, the issues around following up with appropriate standards-track documents.  At the time -13 was written and at IETF99, this was left uncertain.  The new section considers a number of alternatives and concludes that the appropriate path forward is to develop documents based on draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update and draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update.
> 	• There is a new Security Considerations section, which is compatible with the (more detailed) corresponding sections of draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00 and draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update-01.
> With regard to -14, I'd like people to Review That Fine Document :-) and let me know about anything  you think is wrong, missing, or not as clear as it should be.  Note that the working group has a milestone to get to WGLC for this document by 6/2018, although we might be able to get this done earlier.  
> 
> As part of that revew, I'd like people to be thinking about the plan for these documents going forward.  If you have issues to address or alternatives to propose, pleae bring them to the group's attention.  We will have to address this issue when it is proposed to convert the personal drafts to working group items, but it would be better to get clarity on this earlier
> 
> At IETF 101, I hope we'll have rhe opportnity to review progess on all of the documents in this group and consider the question of the  eventual disposition of draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues.  For me, the relevant issue with regard to this question is whether we will want to devote time to making this into an RFC when this might well result in a documemt nobody will ever read.   We are pretty sure implementers will read the standards-track documents for v4.0 and v4.1 but like to hear from the working group about  whether people think there might be people reading an RFC based on draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues once the standards-track documents are available.

One issue we will have if nfsv4-migration-issues is destined to
be archived is that mv0 and possibly mv1 both cite it. If those
citations are valuable to the other content in those documents,
then nfsv4-migration-issues needs to be preserved as an RFC.
Otherwise, the citations need to be removed before mv0 and mv1
move forward.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:31:46 -0500

Good point.  I've looked at this for mv1 and have decided to
rework the Introduction in the next iteration and delete the
reference to I-D.nfsv4-migration-issues.

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues-14.  Although the main motivation for
> >       • I've aded a new section entitled Further Work Needed, which
> documents based on draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update and
> draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update.
> >       • There is a new Security Considerations section, which is
> compatible with the (more detailed) corresponding sections of
> draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00 and draft-dnoveck-mv1-msns-update-
> 01.
> > With regard to -14, I'd like people to Review That Fine Document :-) and
> let me know about anything  you think is wrong, missing, or not as clear as
> it should be.  Note that the working group has a milestone to get to WGLC
> for this document by 6/2018, although we might be able to get this done
> earlier.
> >
> > At IETF 101, I hope we'll have rhe opportnity to review progess on all
> of the documents in this group and consider the question of the  eventual
> disposition of draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues.  For me, the relevant
> RFC based on draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues once the standards-track
> documents are available.
>