Re: Progressing RFC errata for RFC 5661

Thanks Chuck,

I will wait a week before processing your recommendations to give people a
chance to comment on these recommendations. 

I have processed David's recommendation and three from Bruce Fields. What he
sent to me directly was:

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:54:41AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > 4572 - Fields
> > 4914 - Fields
> > 5476 - Fields
> 
> FWIW, those three are all typos that may be annoying but are too obvious
> to create any real confusion, so clearly fall in the "Hold for Update"
> category.
> 

Having looked at them I saw no reason to wait. 

Cheers

Magnus


On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 10:48 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> >  
> > To make progress on two aspects, both ensure that the RFC errata are dealt
> > with, and to progress draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01 I like to do
> > the following:
> >  
> > From the discussion it appears that some think that the reported errata
> > should mostly be accepted. Based on that I want at least one WG participant
> > to look at each errata and public state their opinion on what Status that
> > particular errata should be in. Before doing that please read 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/ and the IESG statement on
> > errata 
> > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/ . 
> >  
> > Below you have the list of errata in reported state. When you have looked at
> > one and judged, you respond to this email and write below the specific
> > errata your recommendation. I will then review that errata to see if I
> > concur with the judgment and then make it so. 
> 
> 4711
> The text in RFC 5661 Section 15.1.5.5 is clearly incorrect.
> Compare with text in RFC 7530 Section 13.1.5.5.
> I recommend this errata is assigned status Verified.
> 4712
> The text in RFC 5661 Section 6.2.1.3.1 matches the text in RFC 7530 Section
> 6.2.1.3.1. Should there be a similar errata filed against RFC 7530?
> Should the Notes section of the errata be added to Section 6.2.1.3.2 ?
> Are there already server implementations that reject RENAME operations in
> these cases, or do all server implementations permit RENAME?
> I recommend this errata is assigned status Rejected, and the issues addressed
> in rfc5661bis after further discussion.
> Additional Editorial correction: The Discussion subsections of ACE4_DELETE and
> ACE4_DELETE are missing the word "how". 
> 5040
> The text in RFC 5661 Section 18.46.3 is inconsistent with the text in Section
> 18.50.3. Section 18.50.3 clearly intends to allow DESTROY_CLIENTID to be
> submitted as a single operation without a SEQUENCE. 
> I recommend this errata is assigned status Verified.
> 5212
> There was no follow-up discussion of this errata on the mailing list.
> Does this errata propose a change in WG consensus? Will existing client
> implementations handle an NFS4ERR_ROFS result to LAYOUTGET?
> I recommend this errata is assigned status Rejected, and the issues addressed
> in rfc5661bis after further discussion.
> 
> >  
> > RFC Number
> > (Errata ID)	Section	Type	Source of RFC	Submitted By	Publication
> > Format	Date Submitted
> > RFC5661 (2505)	12.5.4.	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Michael
> > Eisler	TEXT	2010-08-31
> > RFC5661 (2751)	GLOBAL	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Ricardo
> > Labiaga	TEXT	2011-03-21
> > RFC5661 (3379)	18.50.3	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Asmita
> > Karandikar	TEXT	2012-10-15
> > RFC5661 (3714)	13.4.4.	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Yuri
> > Radchenko	TEXT	2013-08-31
> > RFC5661 (3901)	18.43.3	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Trond
> > Myklebust	TEXT	2014-02-25
> > RFC5661 (4119)	12.2.10	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Christoph
> > Hellwig	TEXT	2014-09-17
> > RFC5661 (4492)	18.17.4	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	David Noveck
> > 	TEXT	2015-10-05
> > RFC5661 (4711)	15.1.5.5	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Tom Haynes	
> > TEXT	2016-06-16
> > RFC5661 (4712)	6.2.1.3.1.	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Trond
> > Myklebust	TEXT	2016-06-16
> > RFC5661 (5040)	18.46.3	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	Jonathan
> > Price	TEXT	2017-06-12
> > RFC5661 (5212)	15.2	Technical	nfsv4 (tsv)	NFS4ERR_ROFS
> > is not a valid error code for LAYOUTGET	TEXT	2017-12-19
> > RFC5661 (4572)	18.35.3	Editorial	nfsv4 (tsv)	Sai
> > Chakravarthy Tangudu	TEXT	2015-12-30
> > RFC5661 (4914)	14.3.3	Editorial	nfsv4 (tsv)	Dylan Simon	
> > TEXT	2017-01-22
> > RFC5661 (5476)	18.42.3	Editorial	nfsv4 (tsv)	Tigran
> > Mkrtchyan	TEXT	2018-08-23
> >  
> > Cheers
> >  
> > Magnus Westerlund
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfsv4 mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
> 
> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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