Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Layout Structures Improvement

From: "Mike Eisler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:40:51 -0700 (PDT)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anatoly Pinchuk [mailto:[email-masked]]

> In particular, does a person providing a negative reply to a proposal,

In this proposal, we've had no negative replies to its latests incarnation.
No replies at all. No consensus to do anything.

> have to justify his/her reason for such reply or a general
> statement of
> disapproval is enough to be considered in the decision making process?
> By justification I mean at least one point from the following list
> - Proposal does not bring promised features into the protocol
> - It is not an improvement
> - There are downsides missed in the proposal description
> An example of a general statement of disapproval is something like
> - There is nothing wrong with a proposal; it is really the protocol
> improvement. But it is not good enough.

You are missing one more:

- The proposal may or may not have merit, but it is too late in the
  process to make the change, as what is there will work.

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

---

From: "Anatoly Pinchuk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:57:27 -0700

> No replies at all. No consensus to do anything.
I have already provided an example of the proposal which has been
incorporated into the protocol without consensus to do anything. So,
lack of the consensus generally does not prevent us from accepting the
proposal. Statement "No replies at all" is not correct. One can check
the thread. There are several replies over there.

>   process to make the change, as what is there will work.
It depends on your definition of work. Some LAYOUTGET requests could be
rejected because the reply is too long. It contains superfluous
information. Moreover, the above does not prevent other changes (what is
there will work without them too) to be incorporated into the protocol.
Also I think it would be good to produce technically correct and high
quality protocol not just something which works.

- Anatoly

Re: [nfsv4] Layout Structures Improvement

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

To: nfsv4 at ietf.org 
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Layout Structures Improvement 
From: "Mike Eisler" <mre-ietf at eisler.com> 
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:40:51 -0700 (PDT) 
<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe> 
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>,
<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe> 
Sender: nfsv4-bounces at ietf.org 
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.10a 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> From: Anatoly Pinchuk [mailto:apinchuk at bluearc.com]

> In particular, does a person providing a negative reply to a proposal,

In this proposal, we've had no negative replies to its latests
incarnation.
No replies at all. No consensus to do anything.