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

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 2:59 PM Chuck Lever <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> 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]>
> 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
>>
>> 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,
>

Cm-pvt data was a different situation.  WGLC was over, consensus had been
decided and the document is  now in AD review.

and I was told that there are typically comments that arrive late.
>

There sometimes are.

Was I misled?
>

I don't think so.


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

My understanding was that you had done that.  Also. I thought that by
asking me to record the last call as being over you were asking me either
to declare consensus or no consensus yet.

>
> Not trying to start a fight,
>

There is no fight but there is a disagreement/misunderstanding that we need
to resolve.

but I thought I was doing the right thing here..
>

Yes but. I'm still not clear what you want to do here.  Should we put off
the end of WGLC until 12/31?

>
>
> 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