Subject: [nfsv4] WGLC ended; Now what?

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:03:28 -0500

Working Group Last Call for the following documents, which started on
11/10, ended on 12/2:

   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning (initiated on -07)
   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs (initiated on -03)
   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask (initiated on -02)

As the purpose of WGLC is to elicit comments, it is natural  that those
comments prompt a set of changes before producing a document that is ready
to go forward to the IESG with.  I don't think there is any official state
for the period between the end of WGLC, and the production of a documernt
that incorporates WG feedback.  I think our practice has been to simply
leave the document in the WGLC State until it is ready to go forward.

In this particular case, the situation is complicated by the fact that the
transition to WGLC was not recorded on 11/10, as it should have been.
Unless there is a way to do this retroactively (unlikely), the Datatracker
history is going to be misleading.  Although one would like this history to
be accurate, people will just have to be aware that this kind of
discrepancy exists.  This will probably only turn out to be a real problem
for potential future PhD candidates whose thesis topic involves the
history of file access protocols.

In any case, I believe that, as far as my document is concerened,
versioning-08 is what we should be going forward with.  I've already sent
out an email detailing how recent comments were addressed.  In order to
give people time to state any objections or remaining issues, I will wait
until 12/9 before requesting that we go forward with this document.  I
assume that other document authors will post their response to comments
(and submit a new version if necessary) within the next few weeks and we
will consider the period of time up until that point as effectively part of
WGLC, even though new WGLC comments would not be appropriate after 12/2.

As discussed at IETF96, there is a general feeling that the IESG would do
well to consider these documents together.  However, I don't think they
need to be tightly synchronized.  Once we have a set of documents ready to
go forward, we can discuss arrangements to have them considered by the
IESG.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:27:05 -0800

Thanks for the reminder about updating the datatracker, David.  I have done
that and when consensus has been determined for the documents, I will move
them to "WG Consensus: waiting for writeup".

And on that topic, it is the responsibility of the WG co-chairs to
determine consensus at the end of the last call period.  I appreciate your
document summary and timeline for updating the document but it is my
responsibility to notify of consensus or not on the documents.

What I need from the other authors is if they plan on updates at this point
and when those will be completed.

Spencer

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:03 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:09:54 -0500

> I have done that and when consensus has been determined for the
documents, I will move them to "WG Consensus: waiting for writeup".

I'd appreciate it if you did that.

> And on that topic, it is the responsibility of the WG co-chairs to
determine consensus at the end of the last call period.

Given that there were changes to be made, I thought it necessary to provide
people with the new document and a reasonable expectation of a timeline for
making a decision.

If my proposed timeline for making my opinion known on 12/9 is in some way
problematic for you, let me know why.

> I appreciate your document summary and timeline for updating the document
but it is my responsibility to notify of consensus or not on the documents.

I thought you said it was the responsibility of the WG co-chairs.  In any
case, you have a vehicle to notify people of your affirmative judgement
regarding consensus, via changing the document status to  "WG Consensus:
waiting for writeup".  I assume there is another way for you (or Beepy) to
indicate a negative judgment regarding consensus if you should feel that is
necessary.

I did not the use word "consensus" as it appears you are quite sensitive
about this matter.  Nevertheless, all members of the working group
(including the author) may have opinions about whether it is appropriate
for a document to go forward and it should be expected  that they will
communicate their opinions.  I recognize that, from a procedural point of
view, the WG chairs' view is considered dispositive.

> What I need from the other authors is if they plan on updates at this
point and when those will be completed.

Part of shepherding is cat herding.  I think it comes with the territory.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:27 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> Thanks for the reminder about updating the datatracker, David.  I have
> done that and when consensus has been determined for the documents, I will
> move them to "WG Consensus: waiting for writeup".
>
> What I need from the other authors is if they plan on updates at this
> point and when those will be completed.
>
> Spencer
>
>> In this particular case, the situation is complicated by the fact that
>> the transition to WGLC was not recorded on 11/10, as it should have been.
>> give people time to state any objections or remaining issues, I will
>> wait until 12/9 before requesting that we go forward with this document.  I