Re: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls WGLC is now closed

> On Dec 16, 2019, at 2:52 PM, David Noveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:21 PM Chuck Lever <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi-
> 
> Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls closed on Friday Dec 13.
> I request that the Datatracker recognize completion of Last Call.
> 
> I'll do that within the next few days, once we have responses from everyone whose
> comments were incorporated.
> 
> 
> Thanks to all who read through the document and posted comments. I've collected
> the comments in an updated draft. Here is a diff with rpc-tls-04:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt&url2=https://chucklever.github.io/i-d-rpc-tls/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt&url2=https://chucklever.github.io/i-d-rpc-tls/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.txt>
> 
> David, Tom, could you review these changes and let me know if I've understood
> and correctly applied your comments?
> 
> Tigran, addressing Tom's comments necessitated a change in Section 5.1.1 to
> language that you requested. Please review the changes and let me know if there
> is a problem with the new text.
> 
> I'm willing to wait until year's end for late comments. 
> 
> I'm not.   I assume the people who commented can, within a few days, let us
> know whether the document is ready to go
> . 
> If you have anything to
> add, please don't hesitate to speak up.
> 
> That's very nice of you but I'm not sure how to accommodate late comments once 
> WGLC is officially over, especially if I declare document consensus.

So that's not how it worked for cm-pvt-data. Tom's comments didn't arrive until after WGLC closed, and I was told that there are typically comments that arrive late. Was I misled?

I don't think you can declare a consensus until I provide a fresh revision that addresses WGLC comments?

Not trying to start a fight, but I thought I was doing the right thing here.


> I don't see a need to effectively put off the end of WGLC until 12/31.
> 
> If people have small edirotial nits, you can incorporate them during  IESG consideration.
> 
> If someone comes up with a stop-the-presses comment, they can raise the issue during IETF 
> last call :-(, but I don't expect that to happen.
>    
> 
> 
> --
> Chuck Lever

--
Chuck Lever

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