Subject: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:46:16 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 of the IETF.

        Title           : Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout
        Author          : Christoph Hellwig
	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-10.txt
	Pages           : 29
	Date            : 2016-12-06

Abstract:
   The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows a separation between
   the metadata (onto a metadata server) and data (onto a storage
   device) for a file.  The SCSI Layout Type is defined in this document
   as an extension to pNFS to allow the use SCSI based block storage
   devices.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-10

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 07:00:49 -0500

Congraulations on getting out what I hope will be the final draft of this
needed document.  I hope publication will soon follow.

As I understand it, this document completed last call in December 2015 and
will probably wind up taking over a year to get from there to actual
publication.  Although there is no WGLC date recorded in the data tracker,
it appears that the 600-page RFC 5661 took about four months to go from
publication of the draft that went into IESG review to actual publication.
I didn't think of that review as speedy but now it seems so.

It appears that one-year publication delays are becoming depressingly
common.  I hope that they will not become the new normal.

I think we need to understand why this is happening and try to improve the
situation.  Regarding Spencer's suggestion that authors and other
rank-and-file wg members might not be putting sufficient effort into the
process, I see no evidence that this is the case with this document.  Does
anyone think otherwise?

I would appreciate hearing the Spencers' views about the pace of review and
what might be done to improve it.   I think those in the IETF
superstructure need to take this issue more seriously before they start
pointing fingers at the authors and other rank-and-file wg members.

Consider draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis.  The authors have put a lot of work
into this effort to resurrect an RDMA transport for NFS (and potentially
other RPC protocols).  It is not reasonable for it to take almost 8 months
to go from Consensus on 4/17 to now with no substantive issues found with
the document and no publication request.  I think the authors are owed an
explanation and need some sort of assurance that the problem is being
addressed.

Although "excruciatingly sluggish" did seem harsh to me, I can't say it is
inaccurate.  We have a problem.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:46 AM
Subject: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-10.txt
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 of the IETF.

Abstract:

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