Re: [nfsv4] Meeting at IETF115, or not

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 12:22 PM Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 23, 2022, at 5:25 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> In any case, let's start discussing what we need to discuss.
>
>
> To start, the chairs need to take action on the decisions made during IETF
> 114:
>

We need to follow up appropriately, but, as I've said before wg "decisions"
cannot be made on the basis of the people who attend a working group
meeting, but need to be confirmed on the wg mailing list.

So let's do that.

>
>    - Retirement of rpcrdma-v2 and nfs-ulb-v2 and the associated removal
>    of related charter milestones
>
> We've discussed this before.   I agree with the removal of charter
milestones but I do not feel an adequate case has been made to retire these
documents.

I think the issue turns on implementations.   If there are no existing
implementations, then I agree with retirement and I feel we can proceed on
that basis.

On the other hand, if an implementation exists and you are waiting for a
second one, then I would want the document to be maintained as-is so that I
could work on an implementation.


>    - Promotion of the scsi-nvme pNFS layout type document to a WG document
>
> It s my understanding that we are waiting for a promotable document.  As I
understood things, Brin was following up on that.

>
>    - Promotion of the next version (once it is submitted) of the delstid
>    document to a WG document
>
>
Not necessary. The delstid document is already a working group document.

My understanding was that people at IETF114 agreed to move that document to
working group last call, which I now feel was a mistake.   Please look at
my review of the document.

We need to hear from Tom, but I feel we may have to split up this document
as a large part of it relates specifically to the flexible  files layout
while directly contradicting rfc8435.

>
>    - Propose a plan to review and track backlog of all errata related to
>    rfc5661bis
>
>
I'll do that as part of submitting draft-dnoveck-rfc5661bis-05.


>
>    - Propose a plan to assess and handle the backlog of errata not
>    related to rfc5661bis
>
>
Maybe Brian can do that with some input from you.

>
> As WG resources are few, IMHO shepherds should be chosen for the new WG
> documents and a last call schedule should be proposed, as part of their
> promotion.
>

Two points to be made:

   -  Shepherding resources are quite limited.  For example, it will be
   difficult to find a shepherd for the internationalization document.
   - As the example of rpc-over-rdma, it is hard to predict when last call
   will be arrived and there is no evidence thhat any particular will be met,
   or that picking a date soon in the future will accelerate the process.


>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>