Subject: [nfsv4] document changes

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:10:45 -0400

draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5661bis-base-01 expired and was replaced, without
significant change by -02.   Given the expected split-up of rfc5661bis
documents, it will not be renewed when it next expires, early in 2022.

I have submitted an initial draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-00 which will be
discussed in the working group meeting.   I rushed to get this in by the
deadline so it has a bunch of typos which will be fixed in a later -01.

draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-draft-rfc5661bis-00 has expired but I had no time to
renew it before the deadline.    There will be a -01 whose major change is
to adapt to draft-dnoveck-nfsv4 security which will be submitted as soon as
it is allowed.

draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-needs-02 will expire before IETF111 and will
not be renewed.  It's major function was to stimulate discussion of what
the v4 security document should say.  Chuck and I have decided that because
draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-00 addresses these issues the discussion
should be consolidated on that document.   I will  outline what I believe
to be the potentially contentious issues in my talk at the working group
meeting.   There will be some discussion there but there will be follow-up
on the mailing list.

---

From: Chuck Lever III <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 23:01:36 +0000

Hello-

> On Jul 13, 2021, at 10:10 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5661bis-base-01 expired and was replaced, without significant change by -02.   Given the expected split-up of rfc5661bis documents, it will not be renewed when it next expires, early in 2022.
> 
> I have submitted an initial draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-00 which will be discussed in the working group meeting.   I rushed to get this in by the deadline so it has a bunch of typos which will be fixed in a later -01.
> 
> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-draft-rfc5661bis-00 has expired but I had no time to renew it before the deadline.    There will be a -01 whose major change is to adapt to draft-dnoveck-nfsv4 security which will be submitted as soon as it is allowed.
> 
> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-needs-02 will expire before IETF111 and will not be renewed.  It's major function was to stimulate discussion of what the v4 security document should say.  Chuck and I have decided that because draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-00 addresses these issues the discussion should be consolidated on that document.   I will  outline what I believe to be the potentially contentious issues in my talk at the working group meeting.   There will be some discussion there but there will be follow-up on the mailing list.

It's been pointed out to me that some external reviewers who are not
familiar with working group process might be confused by documents
named "rfc5661bis" when there is an RFC 8881 that obsoletes RFC 5661.

For this new cluster of documents, perhaps we should stick with a
document naming scheme that does not include the string "rfc5661".

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 04:03:12 -0400

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:01 PM Chuck Lever III <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > I have submitted an initial draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-00 which will
> be discussed in the working group meeting.   I rushed to get this in by the
> > draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-needs-02 will expire before IETF111 and
> will not be renewed.  It's major function was to stimulate discussion of
> what the v4 security document should say.  Chuck and I have decided that
> because draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-00 addresses these issues the
> discussion should be consolidated on that document.   I will  outline what
> I believe to be the potentially contentious issues in my talk at the
> working group meeting.   There will be some discussion there but there will
> be follow-up on the mailing list.
>

One way to deal with that is for me to explain why rfc8881 was not
considered a bis and that it was named rfc5661sesqui meaning
one-and-a-half.   Since no one knew the Latin for two-and-a-half, we used
rfc5661bis.

> document naming scheme that does not include the string "rfc5661".

Perhaps.  I'm open to suggestions.  There's a while before the document
split-up so there is time to think about it.  I have thought about
"4dot1argo" :-)

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