[nfsv4] WG goals and milestones

spencer.shepler@sun.com

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:21:16 -0800
From: Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@sun.com>
Message-ID: <20050228092116.GD990278@jurassic.eng.sun.com>
Subject: [nfsv4] WG goals and milestones

If you haven't noticed, our WG's goals and milestones are woefully 
out of date.

The current list is below.  I have listed what I think the status
is or questions about interest within the WG to continue particular
work items.

Please review and provide comments:

- ADs to submit API advancement internet draft as informational 
  RFC (needed to advance GSSAPI to Draft Standard to allow advancement 
  of NFS Version 4)

[WG co-chair comment: it was determined that this was no longer needed
 to move the NFSv4 protocol forward to Draft Standard; remove from
 out WG actions]

- Continued interoperability testing of NFS Version 4

[WG co-chair comment: this is completed in that many interop events
 have taken place; mark as complete and do not replace with further
 action]

Internet draft on NFS V4 migration/replication requirements

[WG co-chair comment: this was completed but the WG has not moved
 forward with the work even though it is in the charter.

 Question for the WG: Is a server-to-server migration/replication
 protocol still of interest?  If so, what time frame should the
 WG put on the item for further action? ]

- AD review of NFS V4 migration/replication requirements draft

[WG co-chair comment: see above, depends on WG consensus]

- Creation of internet draft on ONC RPC MIB

[WG co-chair comment: a MIB draft was created - mark as complete

 Question for WG: is there any interest in building a MIB definition
 for RFC publication? ]

- Revision of internet draft on NFS MIB

[WG co-chair comment: see above ]

- Draft problem statement I-D for NFS/RPC/RDDP submitted

[WG co-chair comment: complete ]

- Document full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features

[WG co-chair comment: more than two independent implementations exist.
 What is the WG's position on moving forward with documenting
 for moving the NFSv4 protocol to Draft standard?  
 Are implementations complete enough to take on this work or
 is more maturity of implementions needed before taking this step? ]

- Depending on results of AD review of NFS Version 4 
  migration/replication requirements document, review scope of task

[WG co-chair comment: see above, depends on WG desire of future direction ]

- Submit related Proposed Standards required by NFS Version 4 for 
  consideration as Draft Standards to IESG - 
  RFCs 1831, 1833, 2203, 2078, 2744, RFC 1964, & 2847

[WG co-chair comment:
	- RFC 1831 currently and I-D by WG and ready for WG last call
	- RFC 1833 no action on part of WG
	- RFC 2203 no action on part of WG
	- RFC 2078 no action on part of WG; does not need to move forward
	- RFC 2744 no action on part of WG; does not need to move forward
	- RFC 1964 moving forward in other WG
	- RFC 2847 no action on part of WG (lack of implementations)

- Draft requirements document I-D for NFS/RPC/RDDP submitted

[WG co-chair comment: complete]

- Submit ONC RPC and NFS MIBs to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standards

[WG co-chair comment: see above]

- Submit an NFS V4 migration/replication protocol to IESG for 
  consideration as a Proposed Standard

[WG co-chair comment: see above]

- Submit report on results of NFS version 4 RFC interoperability testing

[WG co-chair comment: see above]

- AD review of NFS/RPC/RDDP progress and charter

[WG co-chair comment: in progress ]

- Interoperability tests of NFS V4 migration/replication

[WG co-chair comment: see above ]

- Submit revised NFS Version 4 Proposed Standard for consideration 
  as Draft Standard to IESG

[WG co-chair comment: see above]

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4