Subject: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-07

From: "Adamson, Andy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 14:29:40 +0000

Hi Spencer

FYI: The multi-domain draft expired. I fixed one typo and posted version-07. As I’m sure you’re aware, the WG state is WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up with you as the document shepherd.  Perhaps since v4.2 and gssv3 are well on their way, it’s time to finish this draft.

AFAIK there are no current issues….

Thanks!

—>Andy

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 07:25:03 -0400

This is not the only document languishing in WG Consensus:Waiting for
Write-up.  draft-ietf-scsi-layout-05  has been waiting for about three
months in this state, although WGLC actually ended in early December 2015.
Still, at eight months,
Andy's draft is the current record holder.

> Perhaps since v4.2 and gssv3 are well on their way, it’s time to finish
this draft.

I'm troubled by the implication some drafts, such as Andy's and
Christoph's, are less important and have to wait to go forward.  After all,
these documents were judged worthy of being working group items and
considerable work has gone into writing and reviewing them.   I don't think
we want to create the new state WG Consensus: Waiting to be judged
Important enough or have unproductive debates on the list about whose
document is most important.

Even though v4.2 and gssv3 are well on their way, as Andy states, there are
three RDMA-related documents that will soon require shepherding write-ups.
  While I think these are important documents, I don't feel that it is
right to ask Andy or Christoph to wait any longer than they already have.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Adamson, Andy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi Spencer
>
> FYI: The multi-domain draft expired. I fixed one typo and posted
> version-07. As I’m sure you’re aware, the WG state is WG Consensus: Waiting
> for Write-Up with you as the document shepherd.  Perhaps since v4.2 and
> gssv3 are well on their way, it’s time to finish this draft.
>

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:54:30 +0200

> Andy's draft is the current record holder.

I'd really like to see some progress on the SCSI layout.  Linux kernel
4.6 which is expected to be released in a week will ship support for the
current draft, and there has been a lot of interest in it.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 08:06:49 -0400

> Linux kernel

Congratulations.  Running code is good :-)

I'm not sure if there is a place to address this in an eventual shepherding
document but the existence of these implementations "in the wild" is going
to be an important issue that the IESG needs to be aware of, when the
document is reviewed. Any proposed modifications/corrections
will inevitably raise concerns regarding compatibility issues.

It appears that, because of some administrative slip-ups, the IETF can no
longer lead in this area and has to choose between following and getting
out of the way.    I'm not sure whether dealing with this sort of issue is
officially part of the shepherd's role but I think that authors, co-chairs,
shepherd, and the area director will all get questions about the issue.

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 15:45:48 -0400

> On May 7, 2016, at 7:25 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This is not the only document languishing in WG Consensus:Waiting for Write-up.  draft-ietf-scsi-layout-05  has been waiting for about three months in this state, although WGLC actually ended in early December 2015.  Still, at eight months,
> > Perhaps since v4.2 and gssv3 are well on their way, it’s time to finish this draft.
> 
> I'm troubled by the implication some drafts, such as Andy's and Christoph's, are less important and have to wait to go forward.  After all, these documents were judged worthy of being working group items and considerable work has gone into writing and reviewing them.   I don't think we want to create the new state WG Consensus: Waiting to be judged Important enough or have unproductive debates on the list about whose document is most important.
> 
> Even though v4.2 and gssv3 are well on their way, as Andy states, there are three RDMA-related documents that will soon require shepherding write-ups.   While I think these are important documents, I don't feel that it is right to ask Andy or Christoph to wait any longer than they already have.

As much as I want to see the RDMA-related work move
forward ASAP, I agree that Andy, Christoph, and NFSv4.2
are before my documents in the "WG queue". We should
explore ways, either here on the mailing list, or as a
specific agenda topic in Berlin (or both), the WG can
help move all these documents forward.

> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Adamson, Andy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Spencer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

--
Chuck Lever