Re: [nfsv4] New draft for working group charter

[Spencer Shepler <[e-mail]>]

David,

Please remove the milestone entries for everything except the migration issues work.  We have progressed far enough that our responsibility is to nudge the work through the rest of the process and by the time the charter is updated, we should be even further along.

I believe the charter should have two sections.  One for maintenance and one for potential areas of extended interest.  In that second section we can then include some of the examples of areas that have been an interest for those engaged with the group and appear to have growing energy.

From this we will then work with our AD on charter updates for the larger work items that deserve a notification to the IESG such that there is the potential for cross area/working-group touch points.  I will work with Spencer D. on this approach to see if it is workable from his point of view.

Spencer S.

From: nfsv4 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of David Noveck
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:57 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>
Subject: [nfsv4] New draft for working group charter

The following is the second iteration of my attempt to provide a draft charter to be "whacked" (as Beepy put it) on the working group list so all comments are appreciated.  However, if someone would like to present an alternate draft, that's OK too.  We do need some sort of draft to work from for a discussion in Prague.  Without it, a discussion in Prague is not going to arrive at a useful charter candidate.
This has the following changes from the initial draft.  If you object to any of these changes, let me know right away:

  *   Deletion of References to FedFS, per Chuck's comments.
  *   Inclusion of other ONC components in the Maintenance section, per Chuck's comments.
  *   Deletion of the out-of-date sections RFC5664bis and NFSv4.2.
  *   Deletion (for now) of the section NFSv4 Multi-Domain Access for FedFS.  Unlike the previously mentioned sections, this could come back, probably in the form NFSv4 Multi-Domain Access if someone (e.g. Andy) provides a draft charter section.
  *   Added a reference within the Maintenance section, to the ability of technical updates to NFSv4 versions to include limited XDR changes.
  *   A start at a draft Milestones section (see below).  This is very limited since most WG documents are past WGLC right now.  I've made some reasonable assumptions regarding migration-issues.  When -13 is published, the way forward in this area will clearer and the list could be updated to include some expected documents to address the issues described in the Informational document.  BTW, I'm assuming there will be a need for WGLC for that document as a means of establishing consensus on a way forward for those issues even though I believe there is no point in publishing that document as an RFC.
  *   In order to help deal with our  limited set of current milestones, I've followed Spencer's suggestion and adapted the material he cited from the TCPM charter.

Draft Charter for Working Group (Iteration Two)

NFS Version 4 is the IETF standard for file sharing. To maintain NFS Version 4's utility and currency, the working group is chartered to maintain the existing NFSv4.0, NFSv4.1, NFSv4.2, protocols and related specifications of ONC components such as those defining RPC, XDR, and RPCSECGSS. In addition, extensions will be developed, as necessary, to correct problems with the protocols as currently specified, to accommodate needed file system semantics, and to make significant performance improvements.

Maintenance

The working group has found that as NFSv4 implementations mature and deployments continue, clarifications to existing RFCs are needed. These clarifications assist vendors in delivering quality and interoperable implementations. The working group is chartered with the vetting of the issues and determining correctness of submitted errata. In addition, some areas may need more concentrated work to correct the specifications already published or to deal with unanticipated interactions between features. In the cases in which the required changes are inappropriate for the errata system, the working group will assist in publication of best practices RFCs or of RFCs that provide editorial modification or technical updates to original RFCs.  Once, the new NFSv4 versioning framework is approved, such technical updates to NFSv4 versions could include limited XDR changes.

Extension

The NFSv4 protocol is designed to allow extension by the addition of new operations or new attributes, the creation of minor versions, and the definition of new pNFS mapping types.  The working group will discuss proposals for such extensions and assure they have adequate technical review including discussion of their interaction with existing features before adopting them as working group items and helping to draft specification documents. Siniilarly, associated ONC protocol components that have a versioning/extension  framework can be suitably extended to accommodate new security requirements, and to make significant performance improvements.

Performance Challenges

The increase of network bandwidths and the reduction of latencies associated with network traffic and access to persistent storage have created challenges for remote file access protocols which need to meet increasingly demanding performance expectations.  Some work already done in this area includes the respecification of RPC-over-RDMA Version One and the pNFS SCSI layout.  It is lexpected that further work in this area will be required.  This might take the form of further RPC-over-RDMA versions, adaptation of the SCSI layout to NVMe, or the development of an RDMA-oriented pNFS layout type.  The working group needs to discuss these alternatives, and possibly others, and develop the most promising ones.

Milestones (Preliminary draft)

Because the previous charter was at variance with the work the group was actually doing, the list of pending milestones that can determined now is quite limited.  To accommodate this situation and in light of the fact that maintenance activities are inherently unpredictable, new milestones that fall within the scope specified within the charter can be added after working group consensus on acceptance and approval by the responsible Area Director.

Date               Milestone

Nov. 2017      Publication of RFC5666bis as a Proposed Standard

Nov. 2017      Publication of a Proposed Standard describing bidirectional operation for RPC-over-RDMA

Jan. 2018       Publication of RFC5667bis as a Proposed Standard.

Feb. 2018       Publication of a Proposed Standard describing NFSv4 versioning/extension framework.

Feb. 2018       Publication of a Proposed Standard describing the umask extension to NFSv4.2.

Feb. 2018       Publication of a Proposed Standard describing the xattr extension to NFSv4.2.

March 2018    WGLC for draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues (Informational)