Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04

TL;DR Proposed Standard is appropriate.

Longer version, I may be the guilty party here. When Chuck originally was exploring using private data to extend rpcrdmav1, I encouraged him to publish the format as a draft. By design, the private data is optional, for both the sender and the receiver. Its presence, and its recognition at the peer, drives the extended features.

At the time, the concern for standardization was whether it would be of interest to the WG, and/or to other implementations. Its adoption as a WG item settles that.

When published as Proposed Standard, the document should additionally be tagged as an optional extension to RFC8166.

From: nfsv4 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of spencer shepler
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 10:40 AM
To: Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04


Magnus,

I did a quick update to the tool and went off the header of the I-D - it is marked as informational.

As you say, this should be on standards track.  So we have a quick tool update to do and when Chuck revs his document, he will just update.


On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:56 AM Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,

Removing the IESG-Secretary and [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> address.


On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 09:55 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Hi Magnus-
>
> > On Nov 4, 2019, at 9:53 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The issue, is that the draft says Intended Status: Informational. The write-
> > up
> > says standard track (Proposed Standard). Based on the content I think the
> > later
> > is true.
>
> We intentionally made this an Informational document.

Okay, that is not what the write-up said. Also, it does not read like an
informational document. So, please provide me with the motivation why this
should be published as an informational RFC. What I can see this is an extension
to at least one IETF defined standards track document. I need to understand why
the WG thinks it should be informational.


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]<mailto:[email protected]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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