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

If the AD and the WG support the change, then the next revision of this
document will be internally changed to Proposed Standard, and I will
tag it as an update to RFC 8166.

NB: The draft submission window is closed until November 16.


> On Nov 5, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Tom Talpey <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Removing the IESG-Secretary and [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]> 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]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

--
Chuck Lever



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