[nfsv4] High-priority items for discussion at IETF 105, take 2

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 01 July 2019 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C691B120170 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQ8SJTB68kyJ for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x330.google.com (mail-ot1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B87120169 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x330.google.com with SMTP id j19so14675064otq.2 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 12:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IC/GLTNjnMXHpAU5XYdCT4rGAjn2k/3E/XX0Pf0ZuT8=; b=MdsoyzYdNfWMmjmKGIDhIS1bJlf4PWyFkQ9BvrOs4btGortF45U3T4stZ3rPL9b/1R 04b0q/KnjRfO+yzfyxR/O8LFTqMjGlXIYqfBDf5c1bIKjZZc+0Un4Vf5UMeAv8e+olyg 1pV0alrUc4l/hdFIGO+lY3OOa4aKoJaxVLqInGoxAB0cRSJSdwLnqKEsrJIh2udZI1kb QMn6yNZPZ3Rx1npKXnGpHm1uQH7SzrStfYqFfOdLW33nXwD544knTHheZPC5nVr0xtXz /5YSawOXhdHKbtk1ukkvNgTpl4Vw4WFnrcdNwAKfeGCxMyKoNSJjBO9Y4p3luLDCEFAn LCNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IC/GLTNjnMXHpAU5XYdCT4rGAjn2k/3E/XX0Pf0ZuT8=; b=nMpR8fXUEXZ8PnNFT41V2uHWyGX8hr4ZuweVLTGW0UZttIdTDwime6kptwOP7ZtMPr s8TMpv5y1FnjGBA9ormEPjrB9feVhqabI5dQGTzIwFu0C9qcm9irZJDexH2VF8s/tHVi S1tgzHaXJWnTAOvkABc3YnckDnKb76s6Dzfg47VOZrv8Z2GQV+40j3Xa5dl7c4uZhniB 7JAAYtAuHFTj7cogk4DkXSOxBX3kDkMaxS9jskn9MHPcqt1w8PQS3/AKBIO3iBctJpDC Gp+xVJRe6axU+bWp7f7CvCWkuddeDL8YdqAHY/fNkBHn1E0HfDg6dXQhD3C+2dK/xYKd RgJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW9fQpmSEL8xPSu0UlKkMZLSxMluLCszHKpggxyn+aIhrry8RaQ uGMd4EfOjYwbh6sLvg/VX0j0pM609Lo/pa995LZate9R
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyVlwMmzVT7x19vfl8n/qU5U1OaxD5PESC0ougYjbuS8lfcWqbH0tN/Gj+ho7c0oY8WlhfW+F+Q87xGlbhmN9o=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:70d3:: with SMTP id w19mr21571287otj.208.1562008994775; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:23:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdjRyMD_im_3T7VPPX8T3FzCfL+bXsso8Bnz01aks88Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000450864058ca38f03"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/20ntCGKbZJKs-2UNfV5PZ0awObY>
Subject: [nfsv4] High-priority items for discussion at IETF 105, take 2
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 19:23:19 -0000

Although we have decided to meet in Montreal, have a (two-hour) session
scheduled, and Chuck and I have sent lists of proposed topics to the group,
we need to get an agenda together for the meeting.   Chuck and I have
discussed what we feel are the high-priority topics for discusion at the
meeting.   I previously sent out an incomplete preliminary agenda.   Since
then, there have been a few updates, so I'm sending the updated list of
items.   In any case, we still need to hear from:

   - Anyone who knows of additional high-priority items to be added the
   - Anyone who feels that we should *not *be talking about any of the
   items currently on the list

It looks like there will be additional time available.   If people have
worthwhile items to discuss that are not high-priority, they should send
messages to the list and assess interest.   If there are too many to fit,
the working group can express its priorities.  If we still wind up with
available time when IETF105 rolls around, we can open up the meeting for
whatever people would like to bring up.


*Agenda Bashing -- All -- 5 min.*

*Current updates* *to NFSv4 spec -- D. Noveck -- 20 min.*

This will cover the following documents

   - RFC8587 (*NFS Version 4.0 Trunking Update*): It makes sense to discuss
   this together with the document below since the trunking-related updates
   for both NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 are pretty much the same, even though one is
   cuurrently an RFC, while the other will probably not be when we meet.
   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns (*Network File System (NFS)
   Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol*): This provides updates to NFSv4.1
   dealing with trunking and transparent state migration.  There will be a
   discussion regarding the state of the approval/publication process.

*Review of Current Working group Milestones -- D. Noveck -- 20 min.*

This will cover all of our current miilestones.   In two cases, the
milestones gave already been achieved.

There are six items that have not yet been achieved that still need to be

   - Submit final document describing use of NVMe in accessing a pNFS SCSI
   Layout (as Proposed Standard)

No current document but still has working group interest. Probably should
not be a milestone. Need a plan to go forward with this.

   - Submit Final documents descibing NFSv4.1 trunking discovery and
   NFSv4.1 Transpaent state migration (two milestones neing addressed by one

This is now addressed in the working group document,
(*Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol*):.
Discussed in detail in another talk.

   - Submit final document describing CM private data convention for
   RPC-over-RDMA version 1 (Informational)

This is now a working group document
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data (*RDMA
Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1*).  It is on
its way to IESG consideration.

   - Submit final document describing RDMA Layout for pNFS.

No current document but still has working group interest. Possibly  should
not be a milestone. Need a plan to go forward with this.

   - Submit final document defining RPC-over-RDMA Version 2 (as Proposed

This is now an I-D, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two (*RPC-over-RMA
Version Two Protocol*). This will be discussed in one of the additional

*RPC-TLS and related security work -- C.Lever -- 15 min.*

This will be primarily focused on draft-etf-nfsv4-rpc-tls (*Remote
Procedure Call Encryption by Deafault)* but we also want to discuss the
potential need for other documents such as an NFSv4-focused document and
documents relating to QUIC.

*Moving Forward on Integrity Measurement Draft -- C. Lever -- 10 min.*

Time for discussion of the future of
draft-ietf-nfsv4-integrity-measurement (*Integrity Measurement for Network
File System version 4*) and possible objection/issues with that draft.

*RPC-over-RDMA Version 2 -- C. Lever -- 10 min.*

Discussion of current atatus and what is necessary to go forward with this

*Proposed Plans for rfc5661bis -- D. Noveck -- 15 min.*

Will discuss updates that need to be done to provide a reasonably current
description of NFSv4.1.   The assumption is that the bis RFC document will
be based  on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update (*NFS Version 4.1 Update
for Multi-Server Namespace*) coverted, as the IESG appears to want, into a
bis-like format but that the following additional changes would need to be

   - Updates to reflect the changes Tom made to pNFS mapping type
   requirements in RFC8434.
   - Changes to avoid the NFSv4.1 specification contradicting RFC8178.
   - A new internationalization section modeled on that in RFC7530
   - A new Security Considerations section that meets the requirements of
   RFC3552 and reflect the changes/advances made my the security work now
   - Current erratta.
   - Anything else people think needs to be fixed in the NFSv4.1

We can also consider alternate plans to provide more current NFSv4.1
specification documents.

I'd like to mention that, for those unable to be in Montreal on the week of
7/20, remote participation will be available, even for people who want to
present a talk.   Time zones can be a drag, but it is well worth
considering remote presentation if you have something you think the working
group needs to  hear.