Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04.txt

<with my working group co-chair hat OFF>

As to the milestone date, I asked the author for a date - one was
provided.  It doesn't need to be then - could be much earlier.  What it
takes to move a document to the point of WGLC is effort by the authors to
shepherd it through the reviews necessary.  Calling for conference calls,
making the updates, working with individuals for their time for feedback.
time to update the document, etc, etc.  We all have work projects that move
much more quickly and we know how to make that happen - it can happen in
the context of the IETF but it takes time and effort.

You have Magnus' attention now.  So if the WG chairs become a burden in the
future with respect to timely response - he will correct it.

So... want an earlier date? Ask for the milestone to be set to that earlier
date and execute.

If June 2020 is reasonable given the scope of the document, time the author
has to commit or other factors outside of the WG chairs past behavior, then
that is fine as well but don't wave your hands in the air and lament the
past.

Spencer


On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:26 PM David Noveck <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> How do people feel about June 2020?
>>
>
> It is certainly doable.
>
> On the other hand, I find it distressing that people have come to treat
> delays of the order that we have seen with cm-private-data (six months from
> completion of WGLC) as expected.
>
> Given that Magnus has raised the possibility of the working group's
> demise, I feel the need to "rage against the dying of the light".
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>

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