Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-01.txt

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:09:58 -0700

> This draft matches the draft located at:
> http://www.nfsv4.org/rfc3010updates/draft-01-04/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-01-04.txt

So I just found out by diffing them.

It would be good if you just sent out a draft that had all of your
changes so far (rough edges OK).  Then I could print it and read
it on the plane (in case I need something to help me sleep :-).

> This was submitted to the IETF drafts alias on July 1st but missed the
> deadline for publication before the IETF meeting.  It was supposed to
> be released soon after the IETF meeting but was "lost" and I have just
> worked out the details with the IETF editors to have it released.  The
> issues resolved are enumerated in the normal place.

Has this changed since I looked at it for my issues list review,
which was after the July spec, which this draft effectively is?
I'm supposing not.

If it has changed, I suppose I could find out what has been resolved,
by diffing, if I had an old saved copy of the issues list, but I'd
hope for something more user-friendly.  The issues list has, because
of its size, become almost unusable.  (Where can I get an "I went 
through the V4 issues list .. and survived" T-shirt?). 

> > As you know, I am working on the changes for the delegation and
> > migration issues that have been identified as important as
> > a result of the issue list review.  These are issues 50, 83,
> > 96, 97, 98, 104, 105, 112, 113.  I'll update my spec changes
> > to be relative to the new draft.  I will send these changes 
> > out early this afternoon.
>
> Great.  I will integrate these modifications over the weekend.

> > So what else needs to get done, for us to be done?
>
> I have been working on spec updates and will post updates over the
> weekend and will have a list of issues remaining and matching draft
> ready for Monday morning. 

That's great for Monday morning, but I'd feel better knowing what 
issues you have resolved so far, today, now, this instant.  Surely 
you have a list and know what issues you have resolved.  There isn't
a lot of time, and if there is a disagreement about what issues
need to be resolved or require discussion, it would be better to
find out with 182 hours remaining instead of finding out with 
110 hours remaining.
 
> The issues remaining at that point will be
> those that require additional discussion.

Exactly so, but what is the actual list?  

> As has been suggested, the goal is to resolve all open issues during
> next week's bakeoff and a final draft submitted next Friday. 

There are goals and there are goals.  We have had goals to be finished
by April, to be finished by the IETF meeting, and probably others as
well. 

If we are going to meet this goal, we need to understand in detail 
what needs to be done to meet it, in time for us to allocate the
appropriate people time to do what needs to get done.  Otherwise,
another missed goal is pretty likely.

> Next
> Friday's draft will be used as the basis of a WG last call.

Which I guess makes the Monday draft the basis of a WG penultimate
call :-)

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:15:44 -0500

> which was after the July spec, which this draft effectively is?

No. It has not changed.

> through the V4 issues list .. and survived" T-shirt?). 

My convention has been to update the issues list at the point that an
updated draft is made available.

-- 
Spencer

---

From: Peter Astrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 12:56:25 +0200 (CEST)

> So I just found out by diffing them.

Mee to. Btw, diffing the specs is a bit hard, since the page headers has
changed on every page. Spencer, I suppose you have some kind "raw" text
without headers, page numbers etc? Why isn't this available?

> changes so far (rough edges OK).  Then I could print it and read
...
> you have a list and know what issues you have resolved.  There isn't
...
> Exactly so, but what is the actual list?  

All this would be no problem if the raw spec and the issues list were in
(an available) CVS. To me, it seems very strange that an large project
like NFSv4 does not use version control. Or if it does, why it isn't 
available to all people involved. 

-- 
/Peter Åstrand <[email-masked]>