Re: Determining interrim meeting interest

I agree with Spencer.  There is no reason to exclude these errata (or
possible errata) from the list.  The question is what is the proper
priority ordering of the list if we find out that there is more to
discuss than time.

It is troubling that we have these uncertainties that are creating
difficulties for implementation.  To me that makes the priority higher.

I can see Tom's concern that there is v4.2 stuff that does need to get
some progress made, despite the high priority for clearing up the pNFS
(and other such?) stuff.  Maybe the right thing to do is divide the
meeting between past (cleanup of RFC3530bis, v4.1 errata), and future,
50-50 or whatever makes sense and apply priorities within those two
classes.  We can have big fights about the ratio, even after we agree
that there is a ratio.

I think we need to make progress on both divisions (I'm calling them
Archaea and Eukarya .  I think the most important thing in making the
meeting productive is to have clear material written in advance laying
out the issues and alternatives.  There will be some measure of "you've
got it all wrong" at the meeting but that beats trying to synthesize a
set of issues in the meeting.  I'll volunteer to create a document plus
slide set for the pNFS possible-errata.  My promise is to have both in
people's hands one week before the meeting.  Please send me suggestions.
First dibs on the kingdom/phylum name Euryarchaeota  

-----Original Message-----
From: nfsv4-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:nfsv4-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Spencer Shepler
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:54 PM