Network File System Version 4
charter-ietf-nfsv4-07

[Ballot comment]
Minor comment:

Should the first line be "an IETF standard" rather than "the IETF standard"?

E.g. FTP is not obsolete, and arguably HTTP could also be seen as mechanism for file sharing ...

[Ballot comment]
- Like in the current NFSV4 charter, you should break down the proposed milestones in "WG Last Call" and "Submit Final" and add the intended status

[Ballot block]
- "The working group is also responsible for approving changes to RPC- and NFS-related IANA registries."
I frown up the "approving" word. It sounds like we change the IANA process here.
Also, it seems like this sentence covers a series of registries
https://www.iana.org/protocols#index_N

Network File System version 4 (NFSv4)

NFSv4 ${ietf.org:CPU_ARCH} Value Registry RFC 5661
First Come First Served
NFSv4 ${ietf.org:OS_TYPE} Value Registry RFC 5661
First Come First Served
NFSv4 Device ID Notifications Registry RFC 5661
Standards Action with Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler)
NFSv4 Named Attribute Definitions Registry RFC 5661, RFC 7530
Specification Required for new registrations; updates to fields other than the contact field require Expert Review or IESG Approval (Expert: Spencer Shepler)
NFSv4 Path Variables Registry RFC 5661
ietf.org domain: Standards Action with Expert Review. non-ietf.org. domain: First Come First Served.
(Expert: Spencer Shepler)
NFSv4 Recallable Object Types Registry RFC 5661
Standards Action with Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler)
pNFS Layout Types Registry RFC 5661

So we have a mix of FCFS and Standard Action with Expert Review.
If the charter says that the WG is now responsible, what does it imply? For ex, in terms of FCFS?
What do you expect from the WG in the different situations? Feedback? Approval? (what if the WG disagrees with the expert), Standards Action Review?
Standards Action with Expert Review (Expert: Spencer Shepler)

[Ballot comment]


- What are we balloting on?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-nfsv4/ballot/ shows two different pieces of information
1. Ready w/o external review (05-00)
2. Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"
Is this a tooling issue?


- "The NFSv4 working group is chartered with vetting reported issues and determining correctness of submitted errata."
I like that approach of not only having the area responsible for evaluating errata.

- Like in the current NFSV4 charter, you should break down the proposed milestones in "WG Last Call" and "Submit Final" and add the intended status

- Editorial

In addition, some areas may need more concentrated work to correct the
specifications already published, to deal with unanticipated interactions
between features, or to respond to evolving IESG expectations with regard
to areas such as security.

Could we remove "IESG"? While the IESG provides guidance and sometimes enforces rules, we should stress that the IETF is a community-based effort, as opposed to IESG-driven effort.

[Ballot comment]
I'm not sure which question is being asked, but I suppose that since I don't object to either, I'm going to ballot "No Objection."