Subject: [nfsv4] NFSv4.1 I-D last call complete -- next steps

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:01:39 -0500

As of last Friday, the NFSv4.1 I-D last call ended.  This is quick
review of next steps and the brief discussion we had on Monday during
the working group meeting on this topic.

Of the comments that arose during the last call process for the  
NFSv4.1 I-D,
we have two substantive issues left to integrate.  The first, Dave  
sent email
this morning to check consensus.  The title is:
"CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR opens and the grace period" in case you missed it.
The second is the layout stateid handling and I hope to send proposed  
text
for that later today.

The editors also plan to continue updating the I-D with word-smithing
changes but have set a hard limit to submit the "final" I-D on March  
21st.

Note that even though the working group is done with the I-D, expect it
to change.  Comments will be received and we will need to respond and
update the document as appropriate.

Once we have the March 21st version, the NFSv4.1 I-D will then start to
make its way through the rest of the IETF review and approval process.

As a brief summary of the process, the document goes through reviews  
by our Area
Director, after that it moves to review by the various area  
directorates, IANA, etc.
We will also have a expert review done given the scope of the I-D and  
its subject
material.  Once we are through all of that, it will move through IETF  
last
call.  As expected and warned by our Area Director, the size of the  
NFSv4.1 I-D
and the included material will make this process a lengthy one.  Our AD
suggested that if things progress well we should have full approval by
the November IETF meeting.

It will be up to various people to attend to the details, questions,  
and updates
as we move through this process.  If you are asked to assist in  
responding
to questions that arise, please be responsive and complete so that we  
don't
unnecessarily delay forward progress.

Thanks,
Spencer

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

---

From: Benny Halevy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:07:34 +0200

> The second is the layout stateid handling and I hope to send proposed  

Was there a resolution on the requirement for sending referring call lists
for CB_LAYOUTRECALL?  Even if we decide to keep it for the time being I'd
keep a note that if proven superfluous it will go away.

Benny

-- 
Benny Halevy
Software Architect
Tel/Fax: +972-3-647-8340
Mobile: +972-54-802-8340
US:      +1-412-203-3187
[email-masked]
 
Panasas, Inc.
The Leader in Parallel Storage
www.panasas.com
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:12:40 -0500

> keep a note that if proven superfluous it will go away.

As a general mechanism, it needs to stay for use in the WANTS case.
Also, CB_SEQUENCE needs to be used by the server in its calls but
it may provide a zero length referral list -- in the case of
CB_LAYOUTRECALL that would seem to be appropriate and seems
to be the consensus.  If you would like to see text added to the
I-D to that effect, please provide a suggestion.

Spencer

---

From: Benny Halevy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:48:54 +0200

> I-D to that effect, please provide a suggestion.

Fair enough.  Proposal sent in reply to the relevant email thread.

Benny