Subject: [nfsv4] Working Group last call for NFSv4.1 - ending September 23rd

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:51:39 -0700

This is notice of the start of the working group last call for this
document:

Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol

Data tracker version may be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns/

Full text of this version may be found here:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01.txt

Note that I am setting the timeout for this last call at 4 weeks to allow
reviewers adequate time to review the document and provide comments.

There are a number of errata that exist for 5661 (
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&rec_status=15&presentation=table
)

I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as part
of this document's review and potential updated content for this document.

Again, working group last call ends end-of-day, September 23rd.

Spencer

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:10:16 -0400

> I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
part of this document's review and
> potential updated content for this document.

I would prefer that the working group focus on the document's adequacy to
provide the update of the multi-server namespace  functionality replacing
the work previouly dione by draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update and
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update, but in the bis-like form that the
IESG has indicated it wants.

While I would be interested to hear about existing and new errata, I don't
believe we want to take on the job of addressing all of those at this time
and expect us to do that work later as part of an rfc5661bis document as I
described in the slides I presented at IETF105.   I have heard no comments
from the working group indicating that anyone had a problem with that plan
and so I don't think it is likely that we will change it now.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:52 PM spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> <https://www.ietf..org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01.txt>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:57 -0700

Thanks for the input, David.

As working group chair, I am asking that the errata, at a minimum, be
reviewed during this time frame and potentially included in this update.

Magnus, as AD, has registered his desire to see our errata addressed and
agree with him that the working group should complete this work.

If the working group cannot find the time to review and address errata on
existing documents but has the time to write new documents and take on new
work - priorities don't seem to be aligned.

Spencer

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:10 AM David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> part of this document's review and potential updated content for this
>> document.
>>

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:10:04 -0400

Hi Spencer-

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:57 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> As working group chair, I am asking that the errata, at a minimum, be reviewed during this time frame and potentially included in this update.
> 
> Magnus, as AD, has registered his desire to see our errata addressed and agree with him that the working group should complete this work.
> 
> If the working group cannot find the time to review and address errata on existing documents but has the time to write new documents and take on new work - priorities don't seem to be aligned.

That's not at all what's going on here. During the WG meeting, we did
indeed decide to handle the errata, just not in 5661sesqui. We decided
to address them by starting an rfc5661bis process.  Magnus was at that
meeting, and could have expressed a desire at that time to handle the
errata in sesqui, but he did not.

The purpose of the sesqui document is to extend the use of
fs_locations_info and deal properly with Transparent State Migration.
It is therefore outside the scope of this document to address all
outstanding errata. The only relevant errata for sesqui would be in
the area of Transparent State Migration or fs_locations_info, and
I wouldn't have an objection to reviewing those particular errata.

> > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as part of this document's review and 
> I would prefer that the working group focus on the document's adequacy to provide the update of the multi-server namespace  functionality replacing the work previouly dione by draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update and draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update, but in the bis-like form that the IESG has indicated it wants.
> 
> While I would be interested to hear about existing and new errata, I don't believe we want to take on the job of addressing all of those at this time and expect us to do that work later as part of an rfc5661bis document as I described in the slides I presented at IETF105.   I have heard no comments from the working group indicating that anyone had a problem with that plan and so I don't think it is likely that we will change it now.      
> 
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:52 PM spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This is notice of the start of the working group last call for this document:
> 
> Note that I am setting the timeout for this last call at 4 weeks to allow reviewers adequate time to review the document and provide comments.
> 
> There are a number of errata that exist for 5661 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&rec_status=15&presentation=table)
> 
> I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as part of this document's review and potential updated content for this document.
> 

--
Chuck Lever
[email-masked]

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:31:21 -0700

Thanks for the additional context, Chuck.

I was careful in my phrasing.  The errata should be reviewed in this time
frame.  Resolution may or not mean document updates but the work does need
to be completed.

Spencer

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > If the working group cannot find the time to review and address errata
> on existing documents but has the time to write new documents and take on
> new work - priorities don't seem to be aligned.
>
> > I would prefer that the working group focus on the document's adequacy
> to provide the update of the multi-server namespace  functionality
> replacing the work previouly dione by draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update and
> > While I would be interested to hear about existing and new errata, I
> don't believe we want to take on the job of addressing all of those at this
> time and expect us to do that work later as part of an rfc5661bis document
> as I described in the slides I presented at IETF105.   I have heard no
> comments from the working group indicating that anyone had a problem with
> that plan and so I don't think it is likely that we will change it now.
>
> >
> > Note that I am setting the timeout for this last call at 4 weeks to
> allow reviewers adequate time to review the document and provide comments.
> >

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:21:46 -0400

> The errata should be reviewed in this time frame

They certainly should be reviewed but it is not clear to me why they would
need to be reviewed by 9/23.   That would make sense if the document dealt
with these erratta, but since it does not, as Chuck explained, I don't see
the point of giving the working group two items to review at the same time:
this document and the errata that you have cited.

> I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those errata as
part of this document's review

I don't think that makes sense.  If the working group is given two things
to do as part of the same revIew, it make it likely that neither will be
done well.

> and potential updated content for this document.

I think the woorking group has decided that those potential updates will
not be realized, except for the potential  cases that Chuck mentioned.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:31 PM spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> > Magnus, as AD, has registered his desire to see our errata addressed
>> and agree with him that the working group should complete this work.
>> >

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:39:10 -0700

Let's change the discussion then to how would the working group like to
move forward with errata review and its timeline.

So, suggestion of a plan?

Spencer

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:24:47 -0400

Accoding to the plan (plan sketch actually) that I presented at IETF105, we
woulld only deal with errata once rfc5661bis was adopted as a working group
document, so there would be no pressure for an early review.

However, if you would feel more comfortable getting this out of the way
fairly soon, I don't see any problems as long as it doesn't interfere with
needed document review.   Since I don't anticpate documents needing to be
reviewed immediately after rfc5661sesqui, I would suggest we start 9/24. I
think four weeks (ending 10/22), would be adequate and provide the basis to
incoprate these erratta at an earlier stage in the rfc5661bis process than
I orginally anticipated.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:39 PM spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> They certainly should be reviewed but it is not clear to me why they
>> would need to be reviewed by 9/23.   That would make sense if the document
>> dealt with these erratta, but since it does not, as Chuck explained, I
>> don't see the point of giving the working group two items to review at the
>> same time: this document and the errata that you have cited.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:31 PM spencer shepler <
>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I was careful in my phrasing.  The errata should be reviewed in this
>>> time frame.  Resolution may or not mean document updates but the work does
>>> need to be completed.
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>>> > If the working group cannot find the time to review and address
>>>> errata on existing documents but has the time to write new documents and
>>>> take on new work - priorities don't seem to be aligned.
>>>>
>>>> > I would prefer that the working group focus on the document's
>>>> adequacy to provide the update of the multi-server namespace  functionality

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:10:51 +0000

Hi,

Back from my vacation. 

To clarify my position on Errata on existing RFCs. What I pressed for
was that the existing erratas in the system being processed in a
reasonable time frame (some months). What you arrived at being
important is that you review those erratas related to document updating
the old RFC, which is what you appear to have concluded. 

Please remember that what you can do to address an errata in a document
replacing the old RFC is much more than what is allowed in answering
the Errata itself. An errata is now allowed to change a consensus
decision, only clarify the interpretation of the document. 

But, I will need per Errata recommendations from the WG, i.e. should it
be rejected, held for document update or approved. Note that you can
suggest edits to the correction if you agree with that things are
unclear, but the suggested clarification is not good. 

Cheers

Magnus

On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 15:24 -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> Accoding to the plan (plan sketch actually) that I presented at
> IETF105, we woulld only deal with errata once rfc5661bis was adopted
> as a working group document, so there would be no pressure for an
> early review.
> 
> However, if you would feel more comfortable getting this out of the
> way fairly soon, I don't see any problems as long as it doesn't
> interfere with needed document review.   Since I don't anticpate
> documents needing to be reviewed immediately after rfc5661sesqui, I
> would suggest we start 9/24. I think four weeks (ending 10/22), would
> be adequate and provide the basis to incoprate these erratta at an
> earlier stage in the rfc5661bis process than I orginally anticipated.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:39 PM spencer shepler <
> > Let's change the discussion then to how would the working group
> > like to move forward with errata review and its timeline.
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:21 AM David Noveck <[email-masked]
> > > wrote:
> > > They certainly should be reviewed but it is not clear to me why
> > > they would need to be reviewed by 9/23.   That would make sense
> > > if the document dealt with these erratta, but since it does not,
> > > as Chuck explained, I don't see the point of giving the working
> > > group two items to review at the same time: this document and the
> > > errata that you have cited.     
> > > 
> > > > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those
> > > errata as part of this document's review 
> > > 
> > > I don't think that makes sense.  If the working group is given
> > > two things to do as part of the same revIew, it make it likely
> > > that neither will be done well.
> > > 
> > > I think the woorking group has decided that those potential
> > > updates will not be realized, except for the potential  cases
> > > that Chuck mentioned.
> > > 
> > > > I was careful in my phrasing.  The errata should be reviewed in
> > > > this time frame.  Resolution may or not mean document updates
> > > > but the work does need to be completed.
> > > > 
> > > > Spencer
> > > > 
> > > > > > As working group chair, I am asking that the errata, at a
> > > > > minimum, be reviewed during this time frame and potentially
> > > > > included in this update.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Magnus, as AD, has registered his desire to see our errata
> > > > > addressed and agree with him that the working group should
> > > > > complete this work.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If the working group cannot find the time to review and
> > > > > address errata on existing documents but has the time to
> > > > > write new documents and take on new work - priorities don't
> > > > > seem to be aligned.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of
> > > > > those errata as part of this document's review and 
> > > > > > I would prefer that the working group focus on the
> > > > > document's adequacy to provide the update of the multi-server 
> > > > > namespace  functionality replacing the work previouly dione
> > > > > by draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update and draft-ietf-nfsv4-
> > > > > rfc5661-msns-update, but in the bis-like form that the IESG
> > > > > has indicated it wants.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > While I would be interested to hear about existing and new
> > > > > errata, I don't believe we want to take on the job of
> > > > > addressing all of those at this time and expect us to do that
> > > > > work later as part of an rfc5661bis document as I described
> > > > > in the slides I presented at IETF105.   I have heard no
> > > > > comments from the working group indicating that anyone had a
> > > > > problem with that plan and so I don't think it is likely that
> > > > > we will change it now.      
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Note that I am setting the timeout for this last call at 4
> > > > > weeks to allow reviewers adequate time to review the document
> > > > > and provide comments.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I would suggest the working group treat resolution of those
> > > > > errata as part of this document's review and potential
> > > > > updated content for this document.
> > > > > > 
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:37:07 -0400

> What you arrived at being important is that you review those erratas
related to
> document updating the old RFC, which is what you appear to have concluded.

So far, we have only considered the issue of the verified errata on
Spencer's list
but my impresion is that you also want of a review of:

- the 14 errata in state Reported (i.e. not really looked-at yet).

- the 7 errata in state Held Over

- the one errata in state Rejected.

For the full list, see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5661&presentation=table

> the Errata itself. An errata is now [sic!] allowed to change a consensus

For the seventeen errata previously listed, someone has decided that they
fit wthin the parameters you've outlined.   However, as part of the WG
review,
anyone may raise the issue if they feel that the suggested text changes a
consensus
decison.  The working group will have to address situations in which it
might
not be clear whether there was, in fact, a consensus decision on some
particular
point.

> But, I will need per Errata recommendations from the WG,

I'm assuming you will need these recommmendations for all the erratta,
not just those that have been verified/accepted.

> i.e. should it be rejected,

I don't think the likelihood of any of the 17 accepted erratta being
rejected is very high.

I think there will be some discussion of the one rejected errata (2722).
Given that we
are loooing forward to a bis, I think we can decide on clarifying text.
What is there now,
while correct, does need some clarification/elaboration.

> held for document update

It is not very likely that the working group will decide that any of the
verified errata belong in
this category, although the possibility exists.

I'm also worried about the seven errata currently in held over .   There
might be cases that cannot
be fully resolved in a four-week time-frame but we need to have that
discussion and see where
troublesome issues exist.

> or approved. Note that you can suggest edits to the correction if you
agree
> with that things are unclear, but the suggested clarification is not
good.

I hope the working group will have some useful clarifications.   I expect
there will
be the opportunity for further wordsmithing by the editor of rfc5661bis,
the working
group when it reviews rfc5661bis, the IESG and the RFC editor.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 07:13:14 -0400

There has been a lot of discussion about issues related to errata for rfc
5661, the need for working group review of those errata, and the possible
relationship of that review to the WGLC for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns. I think it is now time to draw a line
under that discussion.

Spencer originally indicated that review of the errata should proceed as
part of the WGLC for rfc5661sesqui.  While it is my perception that he has
accepted separating the errata review from the WGLC, there has been no
modification of his initial anouncement or clear plan for how the errrata
review is to proceed, giving rise to potential confusion.

I think we need to make clear that:

   - the review of errata is to be separated from the WGLC, except where
errata would interact with charges made by rfc5661sesqui.
   - as it appears that none of the errata affect text in Section 11 or its
subsections, the WGLC can proceed as it normally would, without special
reference to rfc5661 errata.
   - To provide for the per-errata recommendations needed by Magnus, a
review process is to proceed after the completion of WGLC for rfc5661sesqui.
   - The details of that review process, which should cover all 39 existing
errata, are to be announced by the working group co-chairs, before 9/24,
when the WGLC for rfc5661sesqui ends.
   - While it desirable for the working group members to familiarize
themselves with the existing errata, the working group's focus, until 9/24,
should be on the WGLC for rfc5661sesqui.

Any objections or requests for changes?

If not, can we adopt the above as our plan going forward?