Subject: [nfsv4] Proposed enhancements to NFSv4

From: Dave Quigley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:38:54 -0500

Hello,
    We have been working for some time now on a security label attribute
extension to NFSv4. We are almost to the point where we have something
that is stable enough to consider sending to the working group for
comments. I was wondering what the appropriate procedures are for
submitting changes/extensions to the working group. I know you are
wrapping up NFSv4.1 so I don't anticipate it to get too much attention
at the moment however I want to get the ball rolling for when you
consider 4.2.

Dave Quigley

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:24:57 -0500

I think the best thing to do would be to write up the proposed
extension in a personal internet draft and send some email to 
the working group giving a very brief overview and explaining
why people should read it.

As you noted, people are busy wrapping up v4.1 so it probably 
would make sense to refresh the draft, once group last call is
over and remind people that this exists.

Right now there is no official plan for a v4.2, but the existence
of interesting content would be one factor in deciding to 
create one.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Quigley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nfsv4] Proposed enhancements to NFSv4

Hello,

Dave Quigley

---

From: Dave Quigley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:42:30 -0500

Is there an example of a personal internet draft that I could look at?
Does it get written on its own or should it be written within the
current draft of v4.1? I noticed the current draft is written in XML
would that be the preferred format since it would be easier to pull in
later on?

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:51:14 -0500

> would that be the preferred format since it would be easier to pull in

If you look around for "xml2rfc", that provides a framework and scripts
to produce text and html output.

(Debian and derivatives should have it available in the "xml2rfc"
package, and it comes with examples and documentation.)

--b.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:49:18 -0500

Dave,
 
> Is there an example of a personal internet draft that I could look at?

Almost any Internet-Draft on ietf.org whose name doesn't start with
draft-ietf will suffice.  Here's a short one:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-tls-extractor-01.txt

> current draft of v4.1?

Write it on its own (e.g., the above example was written independently
of the main TLS specification)!  The current v4.1 draft is already too
large, but your own draft ought to identify where it makes changes to
v4.1.

> I noticed the current draft is written in XML would that be the
> preferred format since it would be easier to pull in later on?

Yes, and XML helps the RFC Editor.  OTOH, I still write my own drafts
using MS Word.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:38:10 -0800 (PST)

BTW, I learned in today's NFSv4 WG meeting that the Area Advisor
screens for personal i-ids that have the working group name in
the file name.

So it is recommended that "-nfsv4" show up in the i-d's file name.
E.g.: 
         draft-quigley-nfsv4-sec-label-00.txt

This way the Area Advisor will be aware of it.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:56:37 +0200

> screens for personal i-ids that have the working group name in

I do.

Also, including the WG name in the draft file name will make it show  
up on the WG "tools" page correctly, which for NFSv4 is http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/

Lars

---

From: "Talpey, Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:06:24 -0500

>http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/

I thought draft-ietf-<wgname>-<documentname> was reserved for
official working group documents. Is there some alternative format,
for example draft-<authorname>-<wgname>-<documentname>?

It seems a little confusing if new (unchartered) documents are added
automatically to the Tools page - is there some precedent in other
working groups to manage this? Just wondering.

Tom.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:00:07 +0200

On 2007-12-10, at 16:06, ext Talpey, Thomas wrote:
> official working group documents.

It is.

> Is there some alternative format,

And that's exactly what's recommended for individual documents.

> working groups to manage this? Just wondering.

The tools pages for all WGs are fully automated. Everything named  
draft-ietf-<wgname> will show up as a WG item, everything named draft- 
<authorname>-<wgname> will show up under the "Related Active Documents  
(not working group documents)" heading, which seems clear enough.

Lars

---

From: "Talpey, Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:13:32 -0500

>(not working group documents)" heading, which seems clear enough.

Excellent. I guess there's some protection against a random document
being accepted as draft-ietf-foo, but the process seems great. Thanks
for the clarification.

Tom.